Democrat platform committee member: no one should have guns...

[martybegan]

Not even close. The whole idea of the amendment is the government doesn't get to say who has the "privilidge" of being armed

Nope. The whole idea of the amendment is to give the states the right to arm the militia. Thats why for the first century the SCOTUS agreed with me.

Actually the people were expected to bring their own weapons, militia's that kept arms in an armory were optional.

For the first century the idea that a law abiding citizen could own a firearm wasn't even questioned, so your point is moot and idiotic.

We all know why assy is in favor of gun control, because he has no qualms about owning firearms illegally, and neither do his ilk.

Owning an arm doesnt mean you have a right to have one and carry it around so your point is moot and moronic. I could buy a live hand grenade but that doesnt mean I legally have a right to own it and carry it around.

We are talking about handguns, not grenades. try to to go all argumentum ad absurdum.

Just giving you some contrast so you understand your argument is idiotic.

It's not contrast, it's dodging the actual issue, you useless oxygen thief.

 

[Asclepias]

Nope. The whole idea of the amendment is to give the states the right to arm the militia. Thats why for the first century the SCOTUS agreed with me.

Actually the people were expected to bring their own weapons, militia's that kept arms in an armory were optional.

For the first century the idea that a law abiding citizen could own a firearm wasn't even questioned, so your point is moot and idiotic.

We all know why assy is in favor of gun control, because he has no qualms about owning firearms illegally, and neither do his ilk.

Owning an arm doesnt mean you have a right to have one and carry it around so your point is moot and moronic. I could buy a live hand grenade but that doesnt mean I legally have a right to own it and carry it around.

We are talking about handguns, not grenades. try to to go all argumentum ad absurdum.

Just giving you some contrast so you understand your argument is idiotic.

It's not contrast, it's dodging the actual issue, you useless oxygen thief.

Obviously the meaning of contrasts escapes your comprehension.

 

[martybegan]

Actually the people were expected to bring their own weapons, militia's that kept arms in an armory were optional.

For the first century the idea that a law abiding citizen could own a firearm wasn't even questioned, so your point is moot and idiotic.

We all know why assy is in favor of gun control, because he has no qualms about owning firearms illegally, and neither do his ilk.

Owning an arm doesnt mean you have a right to have one and carry it around so your point is moot and moronic. I could buy a live hand grenade but that doesnt mean I legally have a right to own it and carry it around.

We are talking about handguns, not grenades. try to to go all argumentum ad absurdum.

Just giving you some contrast so you understand your argument is idiotic.

It's not contrast, it's dodging the actual issue, you useless oxygen thief.

Obviously the meaning of contrasts escapes your comprehension.

Again, not a contrast, but an absurd tangent meant to ignore the actual argument.

Me: I want to own a handgun legally without waiting 3-6 months and paying $1000"

You: WHY WOULD YOU WANT A GRENADE DON"T THROW THE GRENADE WARGLWARGLWARGL

 

[Asclepias]

Owning an arm doesnt mean you have a right to have one and carry it around so your point is moot and moronic. I could buy a live hand grenade but that doesnt mean I legally have a right to own it and carry it around.

We are talking about handguns, not grenades. try to to go all argumentum ad absurdum.

Just giving you some contrast so you understand your argument is idiotic.

It's not contrast, it's dodging the actual issue, you useless oxygen thief.

Obviously the meaning of contrasts escapes your comprehension.

Again, not a contrast, but an absurd tangent meant to ignore the actual argument.

Me: I want to own a handgun legally without waiting 3-6 months and paying $1000"

You: WHY WOULD YOU WANT A GRENADE DON"T THROW THE GRENADE WARGLWARGLWARGL

Stop displaying your idiocy. No one said anything like that.

 

[martybegan]

We are talking about handguns, not grenades. try to to go all argumentum ad absurdum.

Just giving you some contrast so you understand your argument is idiotic.

It's not contrast, it's dodging the actual issue, you useless oxygen thief.

Obviously the meaning of contrasts escapes your comprehension.

Again, not a contrast, but an absurd tangent meant to ignore the actual argument.

Me: I want to own a handgun legally without waiting 3-6 months and paying $1000"

You: WHY WOULD YOU WANT A GRENADE DON"T THROW THE GRENADE WARGLWARGLWARGL

Stop displaying your idiocy. No one said anything like that.

It's the crux of your "contribution" to the discussion.

 

[Asclepias]

Just giving you some contrast so you understand your argument is idiotic.

It's not contrast, it's dodging the actual issue, you useless oxygen thief.

Obviously the meaning of contrasts escapes your comprehension.

Again, not a contrast, but an absurd tangent meant to ignore the actual argument.

Me: I want to own a handgun legally without waiting 3-6 months and paying $1000"

You: WHY WOULD YOU WANT A GRENADE DON"T THROW THE GRENADE WARGLWARGLWARGL

Stop displaying your idiocy. No one said anything like that.

It's the crux of your "contribution" to the discussion.

Obviously you have been emotionally disemboweled if you honestly believe that yet you are still addressing me.

 

[martybegan]

It's not contrast, it's dodging the actual issue, you useless oxygen thief.

Obviously the meaning of contrasts escapes your comprehension.

Again, not a contrast, but an absurd tangent meant to ignore the actual argument.

Me: I want to own a handgun legally without waiting 3-6 months and paying $1000"

You: WHY WOULD YOU WANT A GRENADE DON"T THROW THE GRENADE WARGLWARGLWARGL

Stop displaying your idiocy. No one said anything like that.

It's the crux of your "contribution" to the discussion.

Obviously you have been emotionally disemboweled if you honestly believe that yet you are still addressing me.

What I am addressing is an idiot who is losing the argument.

Too bad, so Sad.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Hey Asseclipias, what was the black man's name that the Chinese stole the first guns (fire lances) from ?

Who brought guns, disease and genocide to america, wiped out a people already here and eslaved another group of people for centuries?

The Spanish.

Yes, European colonial empires in general.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

So there is no freedom of speech on the Internet, radio, or network news?

Speech is regulated. Time, place and manner restrictions everywhere.

And nice work ignoring the rest of my post.

I haven't argued that arms can't be reasonably regulated just as speech is reasonably regulated, but the government cannot legally oppress speech just as they cannot legally oppress gun ownership.

As for the rest of your post, there is nothing to address. If the detractors of Mason were correct they'd have gotten their way 200 years ago. The reality is, those like yourself who wish to oppress the rights of others have been losing this issue. Overall, states and the courts have been lessening restrictions on guns in recent years, not strengthening them.

WTF are you talking about with "gotten their way"? The 2nd Amendment, for 220 years, was NEVER interpreted as a constitutional right to self-defense using firearms until 2008. Do you know the first thing about constitutional law? Or are you one of these facebook lawyers? The Roberts Court departed from all legal precedent on the 2nd amendment, including most readily accepted meanings regarding "well regulated militia" in accompanying constitutional convention writings. Mason absolutely DID NOT get his way.

You claim I wish to "oppress" the rights of others? I don't think you know what the fuck that word means. I'm for 100% background checks, registration, licensing, better training, etc. Just like cars (which, you know, everyone actually needs, unlike guns, which purely exist to replace your flaccid erection). That's not oppression, that's pure common sense.

And you are correct, gun laws have been loosened, but not because of some freedom-fighting ethic among the people; it's because of the gun manufacturers' having the most powerful special interest lobby in Congress. They want the moolah, not the rights for the "whole people". You're just one of their many obedient shills.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

lol @ all the facebook constitutional scholars here.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...(Spurious Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

He may not have said it but he thought it was important enough to quote it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Breitbart"

lol

Preeminent purveyor of rightwing lies on the internet.

 

[Chuz Life]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

If you really want to understand the historical context of the 2nd Amendment, you might consider the language of some of the State's Constitutions and how they also secured the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.

Indiana Constitution, Article 12, section 1;

Composition

A militia shall be provided and (the militia) shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

 

[Chuz Life]

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

And here you go dunce....

I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights predate Heller.....twit.

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Bwahahahahaha

 

[hunarcy]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

Sadly, you are wrong. I believe you KNOW you are wrong. If you DON'T know you're wrong, you probably failed 7th grade grammar class.

 

[hunarcy]

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

If that were the case, why doesn't the amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

The "PEOPLE" is each individual in the United States or it could mean each individual who is an eligible voter, which would allow us to regulate gun ownership amongst children and felons.


People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

Because that was not the writing style of the time. You can look and see this style in other amendments. You should be asking the question why doesnt it say "All citizens have a right to bear arms." without the "well regulated militia" part. Grammatically you can see that right is contingent on you being in the militia.

And here you go dunce....

I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights predate Heller.....twit.

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

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

They were stretching to not make a decision and instead sent it down to the lower court for a decision. But, Miller died and with his death, the issue died. The only relevant decision that the Supreme Court made was the Heller decision and that was that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.