2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[danielpalos]

How is it bullshit? That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.

Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.

You have NEVER been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong, commie.

dude; You must be on the Right Wing.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur. The law is what the law is. The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.

You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced. The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law. Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.

When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns.

You've been shown that your terminology is wrong. You've been proven to be a liar. When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your unalienable Rights. I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything. There are views other than the simple mindedness you and they are selling.

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, in any way, shape, or form.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.

For the umpteenth fucking time, YOU ARE THE ONLY SWINGING RICHARD MAKING THIS ABOUT NATURAL RIGHTS. You're still wrong. The Second Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. No matter how many times you try to dodge, deflect, and lie about it, that is their RULING.

While the Second Amendment is about the security of a free state, that's is not the whole truth. The Second Amendment is also about the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. You denying that will never alter that fact.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.

 

[Humorme]

You have NEVER been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong, commie.

dude; You must be on the Right Wing.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur. The law is what the law is. The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.

You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced. The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law. Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.

When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns.

You've been shown that your terminology is wrong. You've been proven to be a liar. When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your unalienable Rights. I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything. There are views other than the simple mindedness you and they are selling.

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, in any way, shape, or form.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.

For the umpteenth fucking time, YOU ARE THE ONLY SWINGING RICHARD MAKING THIS ABOUT NATURAL RIGHTS. You're still wrong. The Second Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. No matter how many times you try to dodge, deflect, and lie about it, that is their RULING.

While the Second Amendment is about the security of a free state, that's is not the whole truth. The Second Amendment is also about the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. You denying that will never alter that fact.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.

If the Second Amendment did not include an unorganized militia, you would not have found one mentioned in the United States Code, the official laws of the United States. The Second Amendment is equally about the Right of the people, NOT the right of a militia. You cannot make a case for what is not there, danielpalos.

You tried to make the bogus claim that the unorganized militia is the same as a disorganized militia and that didn't work for you. We looked at the definition of those words.

 

[danielpalos]

The People who are the unorganized militia are not declared necessary.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The People who are the unorganized militia are not declared necessary.

What of the people younger then 17 and older then 45 who are no longer considered part of the unorganized militia?

 

[danielpalos]

Only for the militia of the United States.

The People are the militia of the several States.

 

[Humorme]

danielpalos is posting easily disprovable B.S. regarding the Second Amendment. Some of the relevant facts are these:

1) The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, not a limitation on the Rights of the people.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry


2) There are NO statutes limiting gun ownership to militias only

3) The classes of militia are the organized militia and the unorganized militia. The word unorganized does not indicate that the unorganized militia is in any way, shape, fashion or form disorganized NOR that it is antithetical to the organized militia

4) The fact that the United States Supreme Court ruled that you have a right to keep and bear Arms NOT connected to service in a militia ought to be enough to let you know that the Second Amendment is as much about an individual Right as it is about a militia.

 

[Humorme]

5) While the Second Amendment does not say that the people are necessary, it would be damn ridiculous to have a militia and no people to comprise it. What the Second Amendment clearly does not say (regardless of how many times danielpalos implies it) is that you are unnecessary unless you are in the militia

6) The Second Amendment clearly says that the Right of the people shall not be infringed

7) There is no support in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, or the Declaration of Independence for thinking that one must be in the militia in order to have a military firearm

 

[danielpalos]

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

That is not the point of our Second Amendment. It is about the security of a free State, not Individual rights.

 

[Humorme]

According to Wikipedia relative to the Heller decision:

"The {Appeals} court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", that the "right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution", also stating that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia."

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court, ruling:

"The Supreme Court held

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

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Again, according to Wikipedia:

"The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628)"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

danielpalos, unless you have a United States Supreme Court ruling after 2008 interpreting the Second Amendment then you are clearly wrong.

 

[Humorme]

We will work around the strikethroughs:

"The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628)"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
danielpalos, Unless you have a United States Supreme Court ruling after 2008, you are clearly wrong. See my previous post.

 

[Humorme]

Desperate attempts by someone to keep you from figuring out that someone don't want the truth to be told.

 

[Humorme]

Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?

 

[airplanemechanic]

So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?

You do realize that guns are not the source of ALL violence, right? I know that might come as a shock to you if you're a regular watcher of MSNBC. But get this.....for centuries before the first gun was invented and used, people were violent with each other, even killing one another with swords, rocks, bows and arrows, etc.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.

And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.

You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned. More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms. For every person killed by a firearm in America, FIVE nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes. Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?

300,000 people die each year from obesity. The major sources of the problem: fast food, sodas, and refined sugar. Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?

Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms. Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?

Not in the ballpark? No, I am the fucking ballpark.

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,257

Alcohol is different to guns. If it were merely 10,000 people a year committing suicide with guns, then I'd have less of a problem with it.

I believe that smoking should be limited, yes. People can smoke, whatever, but I don't want them smoking around me. The UK implemented a smoking ban and it was great, you could go to the pub and not get filled with smoke. Go to restaurants and the same. If an individual wants to smoke around other smokers, then whatever, but not around non-smokers.

I have actually called for things to combat obesity. In the UK companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Pepsi, all of those, get massive tax deals and they hardly pay anything. Healthy food suppliers are paying full taxes. It's ridiculous.

But it works for the rich. You buy their sugary items, they get rich. Then you go to hospital and the hospitals and insurance companies get rich too. None of these want to lose their money, so they make sure Americans are fat ass sugar guzzlers.

16,238 murders per year in the U.S. Of those 11,068 are by firearms.

How many people are murdered every day in the United States?

That's the facts.

If you take out the people killed by political jihadists (i.e. Muslims) and that can be done by banning Muslims from entering the United States what would the new figure be?

Now, deduct the numbers of people on SSRIs that are not being monitored that end up committing mass shootings, what would the new figure be?

Take those who were KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND POSING A THREAT off the streets, what would the new figure be?

I'll bet the government never does a yearly tally to tell you those answers. All totaled, it's most gun violence.

Okay, so you said I'm not in the ballpark, and yet, I said 10,000 a year, you said in one year there are 11,068. Sounds like the ballpark to me.

As for your concern about Muslims, how many "political jihadists" have killed?

In the USA in 2016 there were two terrorist attacks, 49 people died in Orlando and zero people died in Ohio.

You take 11,068 and you minus 49, you still have more than 11,000 attacks.

Why you're taking these people out, I have no idea. In Orlando the guy used GUNS....

So, you focus on one, single event, ignore the balance of the question and back to your deceptive argument. Let me fix this for you:

Most, if not all the mass shootings could have been stopped without gun control. That is a fact.

The Fort Hood Shooter: A Different Psychiatric Perspective | HuffPost

Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common... and it's not guns

Adam Lanza | SSRI Stories

CNN - Columbine shooter was prescribed anti-depressant - April 29, 1999

The Role Of SSRI Anti-Depressants in the Columbine Shooting : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

How many more do you need? Let's deal with the WHOLE TRUTH.

Could have been is different to were.

Actually my overall argument on just about anything on this forum is that unless the way people vote in elections changes, there's really not much point in doing anything.

Proportional Representation would increase the number of parties in Congress, it would allow people to vote for who they WANT rather than who they don't want, it would allow for more oversight, it would make it harder for the rich to control government, and it would allow more than 12 states to participate in the Presidential election.

It would allow for the people to control government more and for more sensible politics and less partisan politics, which means it might actually be worth considering things, because there might be a chance that it would actually work, right now govt is so stuck up with partisan glue, that govt doesn't work.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?

danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?

So what, it is a simple appeal to ignorance.

Posse comitatus is the common law.

 

[Humorme]

Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?

danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.

His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll. None of his crap makes any sense. He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.

 

[Markle]

So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?

Who is going to turn in their guns?

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?

danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.

His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll. None of his crap makes any sense. He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.

Don't blame me, You are clueless and Causeless.