400 million guns

[multivita-man]

Absolutely. An infringement of the 2A. I don't see what your argument is here.

That figures.

 

[multivita-man]

Where does the 2A say that? Because, after all, that would be an infringement.

Not. Good night, kid.

Sleep tight.

Don't let the bed bugs bite.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not asking for a radical lefty court...

Yes. Yes you are.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think most gun rights enthusiasts misunderstand the 2nd Amendment...

A statement of unfathomable irony.

Right of the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
The people.

See? Perfect understanding.

I give zero fucks what the Supreme Court since 2000 (and especially since 2005) says on the matter -- those are not valid arguments in my view.

No one cares.

The 2nd Amendment says "right to keep and bear arms"; it doesn't say guns,

Guns are... arms.
And so, whatever other arms might be protected by the 2nd, it protects... guns.
What else do you suppose the well-regulated militia woddl use?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We could go a lot farther and nothing in the Constitution actually forbids it; in fact that's what the whole "well-regulated militia" clause would seem to suggest. The 2nd Amendment isn't about individual firearms ownership; it's really akin to what currently exists in Switzerland, with able-bodied people joining as reservists in the militia, getting a military issued weapon, getting trained to use it and getting familiar with it, and maintaining responsible possession of it in case of an insurrection or foreign invasion.

Absolute nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It IS there… in the context of a well regulated militia

She says, lying through her teeth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I want is for new sales of assault weapons to be banned...

Mindless, unconstitutional nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's not a right. You have a right to own some types of arms, but not all types.

The term you;re looking for is "all bearable arms".
There's no sound argument that AR15s, et al, do not stand under this umbrella.

I think even Scalia in Heller said that there are some arms that are too dangerous for people at large to own

"Dangerous and unusual"
"Bearable arms" do not fall into this category.

 

[multivita-man]

Right of the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
The people.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is situated in the context of the militia. They didn't amend the Constitution 4 years after it was ratified just so every homeowner could have the latest musket. There was a specific purpose in mind and it had to do with collective defense. The "right to bear arms" predates America, dating back to 1689 and the English Bill of Rights.

Guns are... arms.
And so, whatever other arms might be protected by the 2nd, it protects... guns.
What else do you suppose the well-regulated militia woddl use?

Nope, not correct. You can't own military grade weapons unless they've been non-militarized (i.e., disabled).

After 1903 the militia was defined and broken down into two types: There's an official militia, which can be either the National Guard or a state's own militia, and then there's unofficial militia, which can run around the forests of Northern California and Northern Michigan and shoot their little toys off but they're not really recognized in any official capacity. All 50 states prohibit unofficial people's militias from having any purpose other than just basically being a club of people who like to play soldier.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is situated in the context of the militia.

Can;t be.
There is no right for anyone to serve in the militia.
As such, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be related to service in the militia.

Nope, not correct. You can't own military grade weapons unless they've been non-militarized (i.e., disabled).

The fact I very certainly can legally own fully functional "military grade weapons" aside...

What weapons are the militia to use, if not those suitable for service in same?

Its funny how you want to argue the 2nd revolves around the right to own and use firerarms in service of the militia, but does not include the right to own and use the weapons most suitable for service in same.
You DO know the people serving in the militia were expected to equip and arm themselves, - right?

So again:
If not guns, what else do you suppose the well-regulated militia would use?

 

[progressive hunter]

Your right to keep and bear arms has been infringed. Did you know that?

no shit sherlock,,,

glad you agree its an infringement and the government is outside their authority,,

 

[MagicMike]

Yep, but they claim to care about anonymous dead people from gun murders on a deep personal level (and only ones that follow a specific race quota), while the car fatalities they drive over the corpses whistling, uncaring.

Or.. it’s about the guns. I mean, just imagine how much of a crazed ideologue you have to be to read “shall not be infringed” and still think it’s okay to gun grab. It’s just the sign of an unintelligent person

Or maybe it's like reading the words "A WELL REGULATED militia" and then bristling at any attempt at regulation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your right to keep and bear arms has been infringed. Did you know that?

Yes. And these infringements are slowly being rolled back.
Next on the Bruen chopping block: Magazine and assault weapon bans.

 

[MagicMike]

what part of the 2A justifies mass murder?

The part that says that ANYONE can possess a firearm.
Even mass murderers.

 

[multivita-man]

The term you;re looking for is "all bearable arms".
There's no sound argument that AR15s, et al, do not stand under this umbrella.

"Dangerous and unusual"
"Bearable arms" do not fall into this category.

I only used Scalia for emphasis.

I agree that DC's blanket ban on guns was excessively restrictive and inconsistent with traditions that predate the Constitution, but the reasoning behind Heller was frankly weak, and deliberately so. They were setting up to make 2nd Amendment rights an individual liberty in the same way that free speech and a free press are, and that's just not at all accurate historically or from a legal standpoint.

 

[multivita-man]

Yes. And these infringements are slowly being rolled back.
Next on the Bruen chopping block: Magazine and assault weapon bans.

Or maybe mass protests in front of the SCOTUS building until corrupt fuckers like Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas resign. Roberts should probably feel the heat, too, since he countenances this shit.

 

[miketx]

"...Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing
and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --"Matt" (anonymous) from his review of Adam Winkler's 'Gunfight, the Battle Over the Second Amendment in America"

There are some 400 million guns in America, and if guns were making us safer, we'd be the safest place on earth, which America is not.

That is a fact Republicans cannot reconcile.

And to average republican, I guess that for them, they aren't enough.

Guns deaths have taken the lead in children, and this is a fairly recent development. And, please, no crap about 'well, half those deaths are suicide' because,
simply because that stat isn't caused by fewer guns, let's be clear.

So I hope those of you second amendment 'cold dead hands' types are happy.

It sure isn't for the parents of those dead children whose lives have been ruined by your cherished 'second amendment'.

Personally, though America's second amendment was a necessary component of life in the frontiers of the late 18th century when the nation was founded, they could not have foreseen 233 years into the future to know of a modern urban landscape where weapons could kill hundreds of people in a relatively short period of time, that had they known, it is doubtful they would have confined the second amendment's langage to one compound sentence, whose actual meaning continues to be debated to this day.

It's time for a 28th Amendment to update the 2nd, a vertible 2nd Amendment 2.0, as it were, and as to what the new language would be, I'll let you guys duke it out, but it needs to be updated,

It's time.

Cheers,
Rumpole

come get mine ya pos.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Or maybe it's like reading the words "A WELL REGULATED militia" and then bristling at any attempt at regulation.

Are you serious?

You think the writers who used “well-regulated” in the 1700s meant government regulation? LMAO!!!!!!

The constitution center sums it up:

It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

Wow, how does it feel to be so confidently wrong and ignorant?

 

[miketx]

Or maybe mass protests in front of the SCOTUS building until corrupt fuckers like Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas resign. Roberts should probably feel the heat, too, since he countenances this shit.

Come get them.

 

[miketx]

Or maybe it's like reading the words "A WELL REGULATED militia" and then bristling at any attempt at regulation.

Liars like you should be locked away forever.