Do you notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

[Daryl Hunt]

do yopu

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

I will add that nothing you suggest will do anything but give the government more power over the people,,,

so whos side are you on anyway???

;;

Your quote of I will add that nothing says it all. Have a good day.

 

[progressive hunter]

do yopu

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

but you didnt say how the 2nd should be updated,,,you just gave some long winded incoherent rant that ended about ray guns

come on its only a sentence or two

The first thing that has to be done is enter into discussion. You honestly believe that either of us have all the answers by ourselves? The answers are always a compromise. That means, I state by reasoning, you state yours. Others state theirs. In the end, we all agree to a compromise. That is what is lacking in Washington these days. It's never all nor nothing. If you go for all or nothing what you usually end up with is nothing. Now, counter what I said. I know there are points you won't agree with and some you will.

whats to discuss,,,I said its fine how it is and has lasted over 200 yrs

maybe the problem is you???

Oh, really. Then the Courts are all wrong, right? Even Trump banning with his Executive Order Bump Stocks makes him a Traitor, right? The 1934 Firearms Act is Traitorous, it's all a conspiracy. Has to be. Or could it just be you.

the courts,and POTUS used to say slavery was OK,,,

was it??? were they traitors to humanity???

 

[progressive hunter]

do yopu

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

I will add that nothing you suggest will do anything but give the government more power over the people,,,

so whos side are you on anyway???

;;

Your quote of I will add that nothing says it all. Have a good day.

since you took it out of context I understand

 

[MAGAman]

Do you ever notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

Do you ever notice how pro-Abortion nuts never talk about the babies they want to kill?

Do you notice how Socialist Medicine nuts never talk about the millions of people killed by it?

Do you notice how Global Warming nuts never talk about how their agenda will necessarily destroy the economy and throw millions into poverty?

Do you notice how Russian Collusion nuts never talk about how Trump was exonerated?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh, I see. Now it's Some. You should have said that in the first place and I would have agreed with you.

Did he say all democrats are talking about semi-auto ban? I didn't read it that way.

But, that's how it starts. SOME start talking about it. Before you know it, ALL are talking about it and it becomes a reality.

.

 

[Rustic]

Oh, I agree we need to amend. But we also need to amend the 2nd as well. You can't have one without the other.

Just curious, specifically what are the amendments you would propose?

youre wasting your time,,,I have been asking him for months with no answer

You first. I have already said what I would do. You just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. You totally locked it out of your memory. Works out so much better for your, doens't it. So you tell me what needs to be changed, if any first.

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

Lol
How about leave it alone... If it ain’t broken don’t fix it

 

[EGR one]

do yopu

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

Arming a militia is a no brainer and does not need a constitutional provision, since it would be the government arming the militia at it's discretion. Obviously, the second amendment has another purpose other then ensuring the government maintains a well regulated militia.

It takes well educated and adept lawyers to confuse simple language into nonsense. The independent clause "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means exactly what it says. It protects the right of the people to keep and maintain arms.

 

[Rustic]

I am sure that the out of control gun killings in America could be resolved if we just had more guns!

Lol
We have no criminal control in this country, because the vast majority of violent crime is performed by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict control control laws...

 

[MAGAman]

Ending gun violence in this country is an issue of changing hearts and speaking to people's humanity. We can't give up that fight. Our kids' lives have to come before gun lobby greed.

You don't change hearts toward peace by spewing hatred toward peaceful gun owners.

If you want to change hearts, start with your own

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh, I see. Now it's Some. You should have said that in the first place and I would have agreed with you.

Did he say all democrats are talking about semi-auto ban? I didn't read it that way.

But, that's how it starts. SOME start talking about it. Before you know it, ALL are talking about it and it becomes a reality.

.

All, I just checked the manual and it didn't cover it. Sorry, but if you state that "Some" then I would agree. But ALL? Wow. I am sure that some hick in some small corner somewhere wouldn't get the memo telling him that he MUST start discussing it. ALL means each and every one. Wow, that's daunting.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just curious, specifically what are the amendments you would propose?

youre wasting your time,,,I have been asking him for months with no answer

You first. I have already said what I would do. You just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. You totally locked it out of your memory. Works out so much better for your, doens't it. So you tell me what needs to be changed, if any first.

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

Lol
How about leave it alone... If it ain’t broken don’t fix it

I can see it's broken by the way the courts rule and by the way your bunch reacts to the courts rulings. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the courts are ruling slightly in error with the 2nd amendment if you interpret it the way you do. That means that there are many different interpretations. In law, it should be very concise and it's not even close.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

do yopu

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

now thats a little long in the tooth,,, dont you think???

Do you even know what "long on the tooth" actually means?[/QUOTE

do you???

Well, I stated my views. And you don't have the balls to comment on them. Instead you just waste more bandwidth by trying to prove you are the smartest person in class. Now either discuss what I put out there or put on that dunce hat and get in the corner on the stool like a good little boy.

Arming a militia is a no brainer and does not need a constitutional provision, since it would be the government arming the militia at it's discretion. Obviously, the second amendment has another purpose other then ensuring the government maintains a well regulated militia.

It takes well educated and adept lawyers to confuse simple language into nonsense. The independent clause "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means exactly what it says. It protects the right of the people to keep and maintain arms.

Which people. Does it mean that convicted firearm murderers on parole can own guns at their leisure?

Which firearms? Does that mean I can have a M-2 on your CJ-5? Or the Ultimate Prius?


Don't cut me off, Bitch!

 

[Markle]

You tell me. YOu seem to have all the answers. Obvious, the way they are written isn't working right now for you. I, personally, like them with the exception of the 2nd amendment for reasons I have already give over and over and I don't feel the need to keep repeating myself so yo can go on repeating yourself.

Specifically, how would you write the Second Amendment? All I've seen is you whining.

 

[Markle]

I know what the law is. And it hasn't changed in a number of years. It's been very consistent. Yes, some states try and push the envelope and get slapped down both ways. What else is new. This is why State AGs are constantly in Federal Courts. One would almost think their whole job was to sue the Federal Government. One State AG during the Obama time made the Joke that his entire job consisted of Come to work, sue the Federal Government, go home. Repeat next day. And the first 2 years of Trumps time, he's had more State AGs suing the Federal Government than all of Obama and Bush Jrs time put together. Not all of these suits are successful. You seem to think you are the smartest kid in the classroom. Not even close.

Wow, really? You claim to know what the law is? How is that possible when you don't know that the US Constitution is superior to all state laws or city ordinances?

You're the one who is boldly showing your ignorance of our Constitution, not me. So in that case, yes I am smarter than you.

 

[Markle]

I can see it's broken by the way the courts rule and by the way your bunch reacts to the courts rulings. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the courts are ruling slightly in error with the 2nd amendment if you interpret it the way you do. That means that there are many different interpretations. In law, it should be very concise and it's not even close.

Did you skip English in school? Are you a legal or illegal immigrant and have never read the document? Our Constitution is exactly as concise as it needs to be for a changing world. Our Founding Fathers were that brilliant.

For your reluctant edification, here is the specific wording of our Second Amendment.

Specifically, what is not clear to you?

Good luck!

 

[Markle]

Oh, I agree we need to amend. But we also need to amend the 2nd as well. You can't have one without the other.

Just curious, specifically what are the amendments you would propose?

youre wasting your time,,,I have been asking him for months with no answer

You first. I have already said what I would do. You just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. You totally locked it out of your memory. Works out so much better for your, doens't it. So you tell me what needs to be changed, if any first.

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

Malarkey, not worth reading. I'm just a bottom line guy. When personal beam weapons are available, we will deal with them just as we dealt with machine guns when they came out.

ONCE AGAIN, specifically how would you rewrite the Second Amendment? The current one is ONE SENTENCE. Let's double that and give you two sentences. Go for it.

 

[Markle]

Daryl Hunt, you're simply a Troll throwing out stuff you don't even believe but you just throw it out there anyway.

For example, you nit-picking about whether or not "ALL" Democrats want to do away with all semi-automatic weapons.

Still waiting for your version of the Second Amendment. If you have no clue, just say so instead of all this incessant childlike whining.

Poll: 82% of Dems support banning ALL semi-automatic guns - evenly split on repealing the 2nd Amendment, banning ALL guns

By Robert Laurie —— Bio and Archives--March 2, 2018

Poll: 82% of Dems support banning ALL semi-automatic guns - evenly split on repealing the 2nd Amendm

 

[Vandalshandle]

Do you ever notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

Do you ever notice how pro-Abortion nuts never talk about the babies they want to kill?

Do you notice how Socialist Medicine nuts never talk about the millions of people killed by it?

Do you notice how Global Warming nuts never talk about how their agenda will necessarily destroy the economy and throw millions into poverty?

Do you notice how Russian Collusion nuts never talk about how Trump was exonerated?

Ever notice how Trump supporters are paranoid dysfunctional dittoheads?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just curious, specifically what are the amendments you would propose?

youre wasting your time,,,I have been asking him for months with no answer

You first. I have already said what I would do. You just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. You totally locked it out of your memory. Works out so much better for your, doens't it. So you tell me what needs to be changed, if any first.

what you said is the current 2nd was a little long in the tooth and it needed updated,,,

so it shouldnt be hard to tell us in less words what you think it should say,,

its only 2 sentences,, so lets here it,,,

Finally, someone can actually read and retain. I already covered this but I will cover it once again just one more time.

Let's break it down into two parts

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, this became impossible. The Weapons of War at the level required at the federal level and the fact that the old State Guards could and would be Federalized meant that the States no longer had control over those forces. Even though the States could have their own SDF (State Defense Force) the cost of equipping the SDF was just too costly for any given state to reach comparison to the States National Guard Force who was trained and equipped by the Federal Government.

It's also been noted that even if the Federal Forces were to try and take over a given state about the only size of state that they MIGHT be able to defeat would be would be one the population of Wyoming. Trying to defeat the larger population states just could not be done. Even if the population were only armed with small arms of conventional hunting rifles at 42% it just couldn't be done. Trying to bring in 2.3 million troops with planes, tanks, etc into, say, California, the troops would get bogged down. Same goes for almost any other state. The United States Americans are a strange lot compared to the rest of the world. Same goes for an outside invasion. Just wouldn't work even without the Federal troops.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is just way too ambiguous. In 1791 through 1851 it was a good law as written. The problem is, there was a huge revolution of weapons right after that. The weapons outgrew the common person. The Canons that were owned by the Big Farmers and the side arms by the Free Men all of a sudden were being replaced by repeating weapons and artillery. Repeating Weapons weren't so bad but Artillery meant that it just outgrew the Big Farmers pocket books and now could only be afforded by Governments, yes, even states. Gatlins were intrduced as were the Hotckiss Canons, still within the budget of the State but outside the common persons budget. But when the really big stuff hit and in huge numbers for the Spanish American War and the Great War and the cost to build them even the States could no longer afford them. The only way the States could afford them was to pool their money together. And the only way to pool their money and resources together like that was to contribute to the Federal Government. Hence the 1917 National Guard Act.

For WWI, some things were introduced that made wholesale killing more dreadful. No longer was it repeating rifles and canons. It was automatic weapons and artillery. Are you aware that most people in WWI were killed by either Automatic Weapons and Artillery than anything else? Bombs and Rifle Fire and even Poison Gas only made a small percentage of the deaths.

Man outgrew it's own weapons of destruction. At some point, we have to draw a line. Everything on this side is allowed and everything on this other side is not. It's much easier to list those things NOT allowed and allow everything else. And I think that is what the courts are hinting at although they haven't come out and openly said it. I don't blame the courts. I do blame the Legislators though. They need to do their friggin jobs and stop this BS fighting to get reelected. If all they are worried about is to get reelected they are just too busy to do the jobs we sent them to do in the first place.

I don't advocate throwing out the whole of the 2nd amendment but I do say it has to be updated so it's applicable for today and then keep it current. What do we do when Personal Beam Weapons are introduced? At some point, that will have to be addressed.

Malarkey, not worth reading. I'm just a bottom line guy. When personal beam weapons are available, we will deal with them just as we dealt with machine guns when they came out.

ONCE AGAIN, specifically how would you rewrite the Second Amendment? The current one is ONE SENTENCE. Let's double that and give you two sentences. Go for it.

One real problem. It takes two sides to discuss this. Since the one side refuses to discuss things and constantly resorts to character assinations instead of dialogue then the debate is just a waste of time. You people need to start the dialogue to prove to me that you are willing to actually show willingness to join in a meaningful discussion until then, it's just a waste or my time. So go ahead, claim your victory but the law doesn't agree with you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt, you're simply a Troll throwing out stuff you don't even believe but you just throw it out there anyway.

For example, you nit-picking about whether or not "ALL" Democrats want to do away with all semi-automatic weapons.

Still waiting for your version of the Second Amendment. If you have no clue, just say so instead of all this incessant childlike whining.

Poll: 82% of Dems support banning ALL semi-automatic guns - evenly split on repealing the 2nd Amendment, banning ALL guns

By Robert Laurie —— Bio and Archives--March 2, 2018

Poll: 82% of Dems support banning ALL semi-automatic guns - evenly split on repealing the 2nd Amendm

Your cite is so proud of it's graphs that it doesn't even bother to give the origin for them. That tells me that someone took the time and trouble just to make the shit up. Danged, you can't even give a decent cite that even makes a decent attempt at hiding the lie.

I think you have overreached my patience on this one. You have absolutely nothing to say that I care to see.