An Argument for The Second Amendment

[PratchettFan]

They don't have to "repeal" it. Just interpret it properly.

Well Regulated Militias.

Done.

I can never understand why people have so much difficulty with grasping the concept of the sentence. On the one side there are those who think only the first half of the sentence counts and the other side those who think only the second half counts. However, let me assure you that the entire sentence counts. The SC also assures you of that.

While the states, and the feds to an extent, have the ability to regulate - the right to keep and bear arms on the part of the people shall not be infringed. So if you want to ban guns, you have to repeal the 2nd. Not just pretend the second half of the sentence does not exist.

Okay. then we regulate.

Pretty much all kinds of guns are banned, and you have to be a qualified member of the militia to have one at all. Just show up at your National Guard Armory and sign up.

Done.

Man, this was easy. Thanks, guy.

That, of course, is still you ignoring the second half of the sentence. You really have to work on getting past that comma.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[

I've known people who have buried family members because of a car they bought for transportation. You pays your dollar, you takes your chance. No one is forcing anyone to take that chance. I also take part in some extreme diving in which personal friends of mine have died, but I continue to take that chance. I will make that decision for myself and I neither desire nor require you making it for me. I am not looking to live in a perfectly safe world. I prefer a free one.

If the US repeals the 2nd amendment and bans guns, then I will comply with the law. I don't see that happening though.

They don't have to "repeal" it. Just interpret it properly.

Well Regulated Militias.

Done.

I can never understand why people have so much difficulty with grasping the concept of the sentence.

They don't.

They -deliberately- get it wrong because thety believe the state should have a monopoly on force and recognize that an armed citizemry gets in the way of that.

Poeple like Joe and Saigon are mere sock puppets for these people - useful idiots, as their idol Joe Stalin would call them - and simply parrot the nonsense fed to them.

 

[Jarlaxle]

They don't have to "repeal" it. Just interpret it properly.

Well Regulated Militias.

Done.

I can never understand why people have so much difficulty with grasping the concept of the sentence. On the one side there are those who think only the first half of the sentence counts and the other side those who think only the second half counts. However, let me assure you that the entire sentence counts. The SC also assures you of that.

While the states, and the feds to an extent, have the ability to regulate - the right to keep and bear arms on the part of the people shall not be infringed. So if you want to ban guns, you have to repeal the 2nd. Not just pretend the second half of the sentence does not exist.

Okay. then we regulate.

Pretty much all kinds of guns are banned, and you have to be a qualified member of the militia to have one at all. Just show up at your National Guard Armory and sign up.

Done.

Man, this was easy. Thanks, guy.

I am a qualified member of the militia. I am a more or less able-bodied male of appropriate age (which varied place to place but was usually something like 16-40), not in the active-duty armed forces or the government. Works for me.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I am a qualified member of the militia. I am a more or less able-bodied male of appropriate age (which varied place to place but was usually something like 16-40), not in the active-duty armed forces or the government. Works for me.

So it all depends on definitions, doesn't it?

The Militia is just those in the National Guard who have undergone the requisite training. All we have to do is rewrite the federal code.

Done.

Man, you guys are just making this too easy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, you are (as usual) wrong, again and still. The militia is all able-bodied citizens of appropriate age not serving in the active military, of which the National Guard is a part.

 

[williepete]

Article 10, US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Done.

That was easy.

 

[JoeB131]

No, you are (as usual) wrong, again and still. The militia is all able-bodied citizens of appropriate age not serving in the active military, of which the National Guard is a part.

The point is, it is defined by a code, NOT by the constitution.

So you rewrite the code.

Bada bing, bada boom, done.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, you are (as usual) wrong, again and still. The militia is all able-bodied citizens of appropriate age not serving in the active military, of which the National Guard is a part.

The point is, it is defined by a code, NOT by the constitution.

So you rewrite the code.

Bada bing, bada boom, done.

If that is the fantasy which pleases you, then by all means go with it. The SC has already ruled that won't fly, but you think what you like.

 

[JoeB131]

No, you are (as usual) wrong, again and still. The militia is all able-bodied citizens of appropriate age not serving in the active military, of which the National Guard is a part.

The point is, it is defined by a code, NOT by the constitution.

So you rewrite the code.

Bada bing, bada boom, done.

If that is the fantasy which pleases you, then by all means go with it. The SC has already ruled that won't fly, but you think what you like.

Again, we are only one Mouth-breathing justice away from a sensible interpretation of the Constitution.

And Old Scalia is getting old.

 

[PratchettFan]

The point is, it is defined by a code, NOT by the constitution.

So you rewrite the code.

Bada bing, bada boom, done.

If that is the fantasy which pleases you, then by all means go with it. The SC has already ruled that won't fly, but you think what you like.

Again, we are only one Mouth-breathing justice away from a sensible interpretation of the Constitution.

And Old Scalia is getting old.

Uh huh. I guess we all must have dreams.

 

[JoeB131]

If that is the fantasy which pleases you, then by all means go with it. The SC has already ruled that won't fly, but you think what you like.

Again, we are only one Mouth-breathing justice away from a sensible interpretation of the Constitution.

And Old Scalia is getting old.

Uh huh. I guess we all must have dreams.

If the only thing you are counting on to protect you from sensible gun control the majority wants is SCOTUS, the fact is, you have 4 justices that support gun control,

And Scalia is getting old. Kennedy is getting old. Even creepy-ass Clarance "Uncle Tom" Thomas is getting up there.

And it's not like we are going to see a Republican president any time soon.

 

[PratchettFan]

Again, we are only one Mouth-breathing justice away from a sensible interpretation of the Constitution.

And Old Scalia is getting old.

Uh huh. I guess we all must have dreams.

If the only thing you are counting on to protect you from sensible gun control the majority wants is SCOTUS, the fact is, you have 4 justices that support gun control,

And Scalia is getting old. Kennedy is getting old. Even creepy-ass Clarance "Uncle Tom" Thomas is getting up there.

And it's not like we are going to see a Republican president any time soon.

All of the justices support some level of gun control. That is not what you are asking for. You want a ban. The SC has been pretty consistant in saying a ban is not allowed because, whether you want to read past the comma or not, the citizens of this country have the right to keep and bear arms. It is not an unlimited right, but it is a right nonetheless. If you want the right to go away, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

As to your predictions of future elections, we shall have to wait and see. The last election was not a landslide and Obama won based a lot upon the weaknesses of his opponent, not the massive approval of his own performance.

 

[JoeB131]

[

All of the justices support some level of gun control. That is not what you are asking for. You want a ban. The SC has been pretty consistant in saying a ban is not allowed because, whether you want to read past the comma or not, the citizens of this country have the right to keep and bear arms. It is not an unlimited right, but it is a right nonetheless. If you want the right to go away, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

As to your predictions of future elections, we shall have to wait and see. The last election was not a landslide and Obama won based a lot upon the weaknesses of his opponent, not the massive approval of his own performance.

Obama never should have won at all, given the state of the economy.

The problem the GOP has is that people like me won't vote for it at this point. It's too dominated by crazies.

Crazies who think that women should have their rapists babies and crazies who think that being insane shouldn't be a bar to you owning military grade weapons.

And, yeah, we can easily impose gun restrictions without getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the first law I'd pass. Hold gun manufacturers responsible civilally when their products are used in crimes.

 

[PratchettFan]

[

All of the justices support some level of gun control. That is not what you are asking for. You want a ban. The SC has been pretty consistant in saying a ban is not allowed because, whether you want to read past the comma or not, the citizens of this country have the right to keep and bear arms. It is not an unlimited right, but it is a right nonetheless. If you want the right to go away, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.

As to your predictions of future elections, we shall have to wait and see. The last election was not a landslide and Obama won based a lot upon the weaknesses of his opponent, not the massive approval of his own performance.

Obama never should have won at all, given the state of the economy.

The problem the GOP has is that people like me won't vote for it at this point. It's too dominated by crazies.

Crazies who think that women should have their rapists babies and crazies who think that being insane shouldn't be a bar to you owning military grade weapons.

And, yeah, we can easily impose gun restrictions without getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the first law I'd pass. Hold gun manufacturers responsible civilally when their products are used in crimes.

You don't pass laws. If you want to pass laws, run for office. That's how our republic works. While I don't see gun ownership as a primary issue, someone had best have some really outstanding qualities for me to vote for them if part of their agenda is your position that I can't be trusted to have a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You don't pass laws. If you want to pass laws, run for office. That's how our republic works. While I don't see gun ownership as a primary issue, someone had best have some really outstanding qualities for me to vote for them if part of their agenda is your position that I can't be trusted to have a gun.

It's kind of obvious you can't.

11,000 murders and 19,000 suicides- EVERY FUCKING YEAR.

It's like every year, we have 10 9-11 attacks.

The best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

 

[PratchettFan]

[

You don't pass laws. If you want to pass laws, run for office. That's how our republic works. While I don't see gun ownership as a primary issue, someone had best have some really outstanding qualities for me to vote for them if part of their agenda is your position that I can't be trusted to have a gun.

It's kind of obvious you can't.

11,000 murders and 19,000 suicides- EVERY FUCKING YEAR.

It's like every year, we have 10 9-11 attacks.

The best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

I don't believe I have ever commited a murder with a gun. Can you produce evidence to the contrary?

You can call me anything which makes you feel better. It bothers me not in the least. However, in the real world you actually have to have an argument if you want something done. Let me know when you have one.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, you are (as usual) wrong, again and still. The militia is all able-bodied citizens of appropriate age not serving in the active military, of which the National Guard is a part.

The point is, it is defined by a code, NOT by the constitution.

So you rewrite the code.

Bada bing, bada boom, done.

If that is the fantasy which pleases you, then by all means go with it. The SC has already ruled that won't fly, but you think what you like.

He is incapable of thinking.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Again, we are only one Mouth-breathing justice away from a sensible interpretation of the Constitution.

And Old Scalia is getting old.

Uh huh. I guess we all must have dreams.

If the only thing you are counting on to protect you from sensible gun control the majority wants is SCOTUS, the fact is, you have 4 justices that support gun control,

And Scalia is getting old. Kennedy is getting old. Even creepy-ass Clarance "Uncle Tom" Thomas is getting up there.

And it's not like we are going to see a Republican president any time soon.

Actually, the oldest is Ruth Bader Ginsburg (80)...Antonin Scalia & Anthony Kennedy are 77. Steven Breyer is a couple months shy of 75. Clarence Thomas is only 65!