Gun owner paranoia---

[Daryl Hunt]

Here's why that is dangerous: who decides what the restrictions are? What checks are there against abuse of the power to create restrictions? How far can that group of people "restrict" before it borders on infringement of rights? Who decides if rights are being infringed?

You see, your definition of appropriate restrictions may be vastly different than someone else's. So, whos right?

Exactly. This gun bill being proposed would require all gun owners to obtain a federal license, and get approval from a shrink after a psychological exam. Of course they will choose leftist anti-gun shrinks, and just about nobody will be able to get a firearm. Then what? Then you'd have to go to court, likely have a shrink of your choice testify you can reasonably own a firearm, and it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to fight this process before they would allow you to own one.

The goal of the commies is to make it as difficult as possible to buy new firearms, parts or ammo. They hate the Constitution and always have. This is just one of their ways to get around it.

Wow, another commie calling. Whether you said anything of worth is dried up. And you are just having another Karen moment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

Because you've traditionally operated in such bad faith that we don't trust you anymore.

And a lot of you have no idea what you're advocating for, due to ignorance on the subject of firearms and firearm law.

Wow, another Karen moment on your part.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why are the gun laws we pass always directed at the law abiding citizen, and not the criminal?

They are directed at everybody, but the criminals don't obey the laws, that's why they're criminals. However if you know Democrats, you know they do want to disarm the law abiding citizen so the criminals do have the upper hand.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow, another commie calling. Whether you said anything of worth is dried up. And you are just having another Karen moment.

It really sucks when somebody teaches you a new word to use.

 

[miketx]

I never had an AR, instead I got two AK's.

Commie!

Nyet!

Back in the 1990s I had several AKs and SKSs. Cheap to shoot and they look intimidating but not very good firearms. The sights are terrible.

After awhile I got rid of them.

The AR platform is better.

The sights work ok on mine and I'm not likely to be shooting much past 40 feet anyway. back when I used to shoot a lot I could group about 5 or six inches with it at 100 yards.

 

[Chillicothe]

Meanwhile, you voted for global criminal leniency and abolition of pretrial detention and all forms of bail and bond even for violent criminals.
Typical of tyrants trying to seize absolute power regardless of the cost to society.

Wheeew!!
From my simple post the avataree, BasicHuman, extracted:

1. My alleged vote on global criminal leniency.
   (honestly, didn't know I was even registered for that election. But let's not quibble.)
2. My vote for abolishing pretrial detention.
   (same as above)
3. My vote for abolishing all bail and bond for arrestees.
   (make that a threesome on not-remembering that election)
4. And then, I'm a "typical tyrant"
5. And, I'm trying to seize absolute power.
   
   Well, I honestly must say I am mildly flattered that the poster, BasicHuman, believes my avatar is capable of all that.
   
   But, having said that....we do remain puzzled by those alleged elections that we allegedly voted in. ?????
   
   Perhaps the poster can flesh that out a bit.
   Be our sherpa in finding our way?

 

[Auld Phart]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia

Properly read, it stipulates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

not the right of the militia

 

[Auld Phart]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

It does qualify the right by prefacing it with a truncated dependent claus "A well regulated militia..."

To argue that the Founding Fathers were just being unnecessarily garrulous and that their words should be selectively ignored as being utterly superfluous - as if they had noted, "Magnolias perfuming the air, the right of the People..."

Of course, the phrase posits a no-longer valid proposition. A well-regulated Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State - as amply demonstrated by an abundance of free states without well-regulated militia.

"A well regulated militia..."

What constitutes a 'well regulated' militia?

 

[Flash]

I never had an AR, instead I got two AK's.

Commie!

Nyet!

Back in the 1990s I had several AKs and SKSs. Cheap to shoot and they look intimidating but not very good firearms. The sights are terrible.

After awhile I got rid of them.

The AR platform is better.

The sights work ok on mine and I'm not likely to be shooting much past 40 feet anyway. back when I used to shoot a lot I could group about 5 or six inches with it at 100 yards.

That was about what I got.

Most of my ARs can do half of that. Even better if I use good ammo. I have three ARs that can do sub inch groups if I don't screw it up with stupid outlyers.

One of the problems you have with the AK platform is it is really hard to find good ammo. 90% of 7.62 x 39 is Eastern Euro steel cased.

I bought some brass casing and reloaded my own a couple of times and it greatly improved my groups.

The best AK I had was a Norinco that was chambered for .223.

 

[miketx]

Mine are good enough for government work!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gun ownership goes hand-in-hand with paranoia.

And dumbassery goes hand-in-hand with.....you.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

 

[Auld Phart]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

 

[danielpalos]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia

Properly read, it stipulates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

not the right of the militia

It says, well regulated militia are necessary not optional to the security of a free State. The End must justify the Means.

 

[danielpalos]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

Only if you ignore what is necessary to the security of a free State. The security of a free State is the End, my friend.

 

[miketx]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Lying shit stain! Trashed.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

It does qualify the right by prefacing it with a truncated dependent claus "A well regulated militia..."

To argue that the Founding Fathers were just being unnecessarily garrulous and that their words should be selectively ignored as being utterly superfluous - as if they had noted, "Magnolias perfuming the air, the right of the People..."

Of course, the phrase posits a no-longer valid proposition. A well-regulated Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State - as amply demonstrated by an abundance of free states without well-regulated militia.

All rights are limited by the fact that others around you also have rights. It's that fucking simple.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

It does qualify the right by prefacing it with a truncated dependent claus "A well regulated militia..."

To argue that the Founding Fathers were just being unnecessarily garrulous and that their words should be selectively ignored as being utterly superfluous - as if they had noted, "Magnolias perfuming the air, the right of the People..."

Of course, the phrase posits a no-longer valid proposition. A well-regulated Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State - as amply demonstrated by an abundance of free states without well-regulated militia.

And in Heller Scalia goes all through this....showing you don't know what you are talking about.......

Yes, but you might have a problem toting that firearm outside your home.

Scalia was a conservative judge not a linguist. That we are forced to accept his decision is a given, for now. But forced to accept the law has nothing to do with speaking out against it.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.

 

[Auld Phart]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.

you're hilarious.

It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?