Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is totally fucking wrong and would have been impossible because the "militia" act did not exist until more than 100 years after Art 1, 8 was ratified.Have you not read or understood Art I, Clause 8, sec's 15 &16 of COTUS? The Organized Militia is the National Guard, the Naval Reserves and probably the Coast Guard; the unorganized militia is a fantasy.
Furthermore, NOWHERE in that act or anywhere else does it discuss any restrictions on the type of arms the "unorganized" militia can use or possess. Nowhere does it even refer to the 2A and attempt to circumvent the protection of the right. It is wholly IRRELEVANT to this discussion.
I agree.I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.
You can't smoke hemp. You can but it gets you nowhere. Doesn't have THC in it.
Ah the wisdom of personal experience!
Pity not to have shared that with Your Very Own New Messiah - would have saved her/him/it from a nasty coughing fit.
True. And, in the context of this discussion, the "organized" verse "unorganized" militia is irrelevant. The whole discussion of a militia is irrelevant. The attempt to make it relevant is dishonest and causes people on my side to be suspicious and unwilling to give a single inch or compromise.The Unorganized Militia is a made up term. It's a bunch of red necks wearing pickle suits running around the woods brandishing weapons with a would be King for a leader. No Governor in their right mind would want these people representing the state in anything other than a "What Not to Do" film.
So, what do we do about that?Tell the readers what was the meaning of arms? And are the arms in play in the 18th century the same as the arms which exist in the 21st?
Taking at face value your comment, you or me and everyone else has the absolute right to own, posses and have in our custody and control Surface to Air Missiles, land mines, anti tank weapons, even anti-personal grenades.
Do you support such weapons available to the general public?
It is clear from the 2A that "arms" is not an ambiguous term, nor was it restricted to any particular arm, past, present, or future "Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous and can have no other meaning than no restrictions whatsoever. Under the plain and unequivocal language of the 2A, the people have the unrestricted right to all arms, whatever type of arms they may be.
So, we have really dangerous "arms" that, under the 2A, should be available to the general public, but you are making the argument that it is too dangerous when compared to what the founders understood as "arms" at the time.
What do you do about that?
Ignore the 2A?
"Interpret" your way around the plain language and try to con your way into what you want?
What remedy or mechanism did our founders, in their wisdom, place in the Constitution that allows us to fix such a problem?
It starts with an "A"... Go on. You know the answer.
.
Sounds like something may need to get fixed.Let's for the moment assume you are correct, and the 2nd included all arms into the future. Do you really want to allow every citizen to own a frag-grenade? How secure would you feel if surface to air missiles were as easy to buy as a banana?
True. And, in the context of this discussion, the "organized" verse "unorganized" militia is irrelevant. The whole discussion of a militia is irrelevant. The attempt to make it relevant is dishonest and causes people on my side to be suspicious and unwilling to give a single inch or compromise.The Unorganized Militia is a made up term. It's a bunch of red necks wearing pickle suits running around the woods brandishing weapons with a would be King for a leader. No Governor in their right mind would want these people representing the state in anything other than a "What Not to Do" film.
You can understand how such wordplay and attempted trickery or pettifogging causes a much greater divide and distrust. Those making such arguments are not helping their cause. They are making themselves look like win-at-all-cost, ban and confiscate advocates and we all believe them to be such.
.
There was no Bill of Rights originally.
They only added the Bill of Rights after too many states were hesitant to sign on to the new proposed constitution, after the Articles of Confederation were shown to not be working because they were too weak.
So historically it is clear the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to lay our strict limits to federal authority.
I would have partially dissented, but only because he failed to declare any federal gun law unconstitutional.Seems Scalia used "wordplay and attempted Trickery or pettifogging" in his long and tedious remarks in Heller.
I would have partially dissented, but only because he failed to declare any federal gun law unconstitutional.Seems Scalia used "wordplay and attempted Trickery or pettifogging" in his long and tedious remarks in Heller.
What he did correctly is rebuff the bullshit, asinine, dishonest arguments brought forth by the gun haters about the right ONLY being reserved for an organized militia or that the right is ONLY held collectively, rather than individually.
If you cannot admit that the right was intended to be an individual right, there is no need to have any further discussion with you.
Can you at least admit that the "collective right" argument was complete bullshit?
.
My argument is that the language of the 2A is clear that the right is to be unrestricted.I have posted ad nausea that all sober, sane and lawful citizens have the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control (within their home or business) a gun for defense.
I don't support the meme that gun control is gun confiscation
I agree.I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.
As far as I am concerned, I will only pull my weapon if it is nearly certain that an attacker will seriously harm or kill me or my immediate family. I am not carrying a weapon to play mall security for anyone and everyone. It is for me and my immediate family only. That's not to say I will be useless if another person is attacked. I will stay calm and observe. I will be a good fact witness.
I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.Careful now, you are expressing views like my own. If it ever gets out, you are going to have to turn in your secrit gunnutter decoder ring.
Gun ownership is a great and solemn responsibility that NO ONE should take lightly.
My local gun range is HYPER anal about gun safety issue and will immediately ban anyone who acts in any way that is unsafe, without a warning, permanently. You get no second chances with these guys.
Video: Man Points Gun at Himself, Friend's Head for Shooting Range Selfies
Guns are not toys.
I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.
Nobody who wants to commit suicide does that. Your life is so miserable you either want to end it all or you don't.
actually, quite the contrary. Most people who attempt suicide never try again. But while other methods can often fail, gun suicides are 96% lethal.
hey dumbass,,,you ever heard of a rope and chair???Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.
If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.
This is the whole point.
Sounds like something may need to get fixed.Let's for the moment assume you are correct, and the 2nd included all arms into the future. Do you really want to allow every citizen to own a frag-grenade? How secure would you feel if surface to air missiles were as easy to buy as a banana?
What should we do about that?
You act like the 2A is set in stone and cannot be changed.We can't do anything about it. Other nations have established gun control laws, but other nations are not tied to a 2nd A.
That is a completely different issue, but one that lawmakers on both sides are not likely to support. That's their bread and butter.The two-step method of coming to some common sense laws on "arms" begins with an amendment to restrict unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.
To do that, we have to make some big changes.When members of Congress are not depending on "donations" from special interests to keep their job, then and only then can the issue of gun control be debated on its merits. A fair and reasonable conclusion, IMO, would allow each State to set the laws on guns within the meaning of the 10th A.
This is why our side will never trust your lying dishonest full-of-shit side.
You are all obviously seeking complete confescation. Otherwise you wouldn't be such lying cocksuckers.
There will be no compromise.
As it stands, "sensible gun laws" are unconstitutional. There's a remedy that you and others like you refuse to acknowledge for some reason.I agree. You nuts will eventually force us to confescate all your guns because you aren't capable of even the most sensible laws. The NRA long ago learned the gun nut was the best customer, regardless of how irresponsible selling to him was.
As it stands, "sensible gun laws" are unconstitutional. There's a remedy that you and others like you refuse to acknowledge for some reason.
Rather, you want to play word games and argue that plain language is ambiguous. You don't want to do it the right way because you want YOUR way RIGHT NOW. You don't give a fuck what others believe. It's all your way or no way.
