CDZ How The Second Amendment Comes From Something That Happened In The 2nd Century BCE

[DudleySmith]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

Historically, Europeans have a long tradition of kneeling placidly before their rulers. That don't fly here.

Yes, just ignore all those wars and revolutions, then claim they were always passive slaves.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

figures they didnt exist,,

 

[DudleySmith]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

True, but it isn't some outrageous requirement to require a basic firearms safety course as a prerequisite. We got them in Cub Scouts, in addition to what our parents taught us.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

figures they didnt exist,,

Obviously few care what you think. They can look it all up themselves these days, while you continue to look like an idiot.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

figures they didnt exist,,

Obviously few care what you think. They can look it all up themselves these days, while you continue to look like an idiot.

I tried looking it up buit all I found was the 2nd amendment that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,

but feel free to keep makin shit up,,,

 

[DudleySmith]

Somebody already beat me to the Heller argument. That being said, the whole idea of a "well regulated militia" has already been differentiated. And it doesn't apply. It's one of the reasons that the modern day National Guard doesn't like being associated with the word "militia". I support any law abiding citizens right to own, operate, and carry a firearm. But gun regulations aren't gun grabs. I see nothing wrong with a national gun registry, closing all the gunshow loopholes, forcing private sales to either be handled through a licensed firearms dealer or pass registration in your state, and expanded background checks. These are just common sense.

So, About That "Well-Regulated Militia" Part of the Constitution

Bay Area demonstrations by right-wing groups scheduled over the weekend fizzled in face of massive opposition protests, defusing fears that Charlottesville-like violence could erupt in San Francisco and Berkeley. Indeed, protests in San Francisco were peaceful, and the few scuffles that did...

alumni.berkeley.edu

The Germans, French, Russians, Australians, Canadians, British, New Zealand didn't see anything wrong with a national gun registry either.....in fact, they liked it so much, they used it when they decided to ban and confiscate guns...



There is no gun show loophole.

Registration is the goal, so you can later ban and confiscate without having to worry about people hiding their guns...which is the only reason you want universal background checks....it is the trojan horse for gun registration.

While it may be somewhat misnamed, the gun show loophole does indeed exist.

What Is the Gun Show Loophole and Why Does it Exist?

Gun sold or transferred by private gun owners are not regulated by law in many states, creating a loophole in gun control.

www.thoughtco.com

I see constant wailing on this board about the gun violence in Chicago when the city is supposed to be a gun free zone.
Well...where do the guns come from? And how do they get there? If you look at this article, you'll notice the states that
have "closed" that loophole and those that haven't. You will also find that the most of the guns that make it into Chicago,
come from the states that still have that loophole open.

There is nothing wrong with registration. We demand that cars are registered.
And your gun "ban" argument in these countries doesn't quite hold water. I just took Germany as an example.
In fact, I see a lot common sense in these requirements. Some of them wouldn't fly here and I would never support a gun grab (Wouldn't happen anyway).

Gun control and firearms possession in Germany – DW – 12/12/2022

Germany considers tougher gun laws after a suspected coup attempt linked to the far-right Reichsbürger group. DW looks at Germany's gun ownership laws.

www.dw.com

Are there any stats showing that states with lots of gun shows have more shootings than those who don't, along with stats on where the shooters got their weapons?

Firearm tracing starts at the manufacturer or importer and typically ends at the first private sale regardless if the private seller later sells to an FFL or uses an FFL for background checks.[55] Analyzing data from a report released in 1997 by the National Institute of Justice, fewer than 2% of convicted criminals bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show. About 12% purchased their firearm from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% bought from family, friends, or an illegal source.[56] An additional study performed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, published in January 2019, found that fewer than 1% of criminals obtained a firearm at a gun show (0.8%).[57]

Gun show loophole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ever been to a gun show? Dealers are free to discriminate against whoever they want to. they seem to have a much better record of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals than Congressmen do. These are of course old stats, but we're open to credible updated ones.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

figures they didnt exist,,

Obviously few care what you think. They can look it all up themselves these days, while you continue to look like an idiot.

I tried looking it up buit all I found was the 2nd amendment that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,

but feel free to keep makin shit up,,,

Yes, we know how diligent you are ....

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

Yes. Very clear. “WELL REGULATED”

And it's clear the clause is referring to states as 'The People'.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

Yes. Very clear. “WELL REGULATED”

And it's clear the clause is referring to states as 'The People'.

wrong again,, whats clear is the separate the two,,,

 

[daveman]

Somebody already beat me to the Heller argument. That being said, the whole idea of a "well regulated militia" has already been differentiated. And it doesn't apply. It's one of the reasons that the modern day National Guard doesn't like being associated with the word "militia". I support any law abiding citizens right to own, operate, and carry a firearm. But gun regulations aren't gun grabs. I see nothing wrong with a national gun registry, closing all the gunshow loopholes, forcing private sales to either be handled through a licensed firearms dealer or pass registration in your state, and expanded background checks. These are just common sense.

So, About That "Well-Regulated Militia" Part of the Constitution

Bay Area demonstrations by right-wing groups scheduled over the weekend fizzled in face of massive opposition protests, defusing fears that Charlottesville-like violence could erupt in San Francisco and Berkeley. Indeed, protests in San Francisco were peaceful, and the few scuffles that did...

alumni.berkeley.edu

The Germans, French, Russians, Australians, Canadians, British, New Zealand didn't see anything wrong with a national gun registry either.....in fact, they liked it so much, they used it when they decided to ban and confiscate guns...



There is no gun show loophole.

Registration is the goal, so you can later ban and confiscate without having to worry about people hiding their guns...which is the only reason you want universal background checks....it is the trojan horse for gun registration.

While it may be somewhat misnamed, the gun show loophole does indeed exist.

What Is the Gun Show Loophole and Why Does it Exist?

Gun sold or transferred by private gun owners are not regulated by law in many states, creating a loophole in gun control.

www.thoughtco.com

I see constant wailing on this board about the gun violence in Chicago when the city is supposed to be a gun free zone.
Well...where do the guns come from? And how do they get there? If you look at this article, you'll notice the states that
have "closed" that loophole and those that haven't. You will also find that the most of the guns that make it into Chicago,
come from the states that still have that loophole open.

There is nothing wrong with registration. We demand that cars are registered.
And your gun "ban" argument in these countries doesn't quite hold water. I just took Germany as an example.
In fact, I see a lot common sense in these requirements. Some of them wouldn't fly here and I would never support a gun grab (Wouldn't happen anyway).

Gun control and firearms possession in Germany – DW – 12/12/2022

Germany considers tougher gun laws after a suspected coup attempt linked to the far-right Reichsbürger group. DW looks at Germany's gun ownership laws.

www.dw.com

And yet....you guys can never explain how it is that the states where the guns come from....have lower gun crime and gun murder rates than Chicago.....

How is that...if guns are the problem and not the policies of the democrat party that has complete control of chicago...since 1932?

The democrat party in Chicago creates over 95% of the gun crime....by releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders over and over again.......that is the problem, not guns, and not law abiding gun owners.

The shooters in these crimes? Have long histories of violence and crime, multiple felonies....and they are released on Bond, often home confinement, and then they go out and shoot more people.....all because the democrat party, not guns, allows them to be free....

So sell the ******** about guns from other states....those states do not have the gun crime rate that Chicago does.....and so that isn't the problem....

It's almost like...criminals don't obey the law.

Weird!!

 

[daveman]

Somebody already beat me to the Heller argument. That being said, the whole idea of a "well regulated militia" has already been differentiated. And it doesn't apply. It's one of the reasons that the modern day National Guard doesn't like being associated with the word "militia". I support any law abiding citizens right to own, operate, and carry a firearm. But gun regulations aren't gun grabs. I see nothing wrong with a national gun registry, closing all the gunshow loopholes, forcing private sales to either be handled through a licensed firearms dealer or pass registration in your state, and expanded background checks. These are just common sense.

So, About That "Well-Regulated Militia" Part of the Constitution

Bay Area demonstrations by right-wing groups scheduled over the weekend fizzled in face of massive opposition protests, defusing fears that Charlottesville-like violence could erupt in San Francisco and Berkeley. Indeed, protests in San Francisco were peaceful, and the few scuffles that did...

alumni.berkeley.edu

The Germans, French, Russians, Australians, Canadians, British, New Zealand didn't see anything wrong with a national gun registry either.....in fact, they liked it so much, they used it when they decided to ban and confiscate guns...



There is no gun show loophole.

Registration is the goal, so you can later ban and confiscate without having to worry about people hiding their guns...which is the only reason you want universal background checks....it is the trojan horse for gun registration.

While it may be somewhat misnamed, the gun show loophole does indeed exist.

What Is the Gun Show Loophole and Why Does it Exist?

Gun sold or transferred by private gun owners are not regulated by law in many states, creating a loophole in gun control.

www.thoughtco.com

I see constant wailing on this board about the gun violence in Chicago when the city is supposed to be a gun free zone.
Well...where do the guns come from? And how do they get there? If you look at this article, you'll notice the states that
have "closed" that loophole and those that haven't. You will also find that the most of the guns that make it into Chicago,
come from the states that still have that loophole open.

There is nothing wrong with registration. We demand that cars are registered.
And your gun "ban" argument in these countries doesn't quite hold water. I just took Germany as an example.
In fact, I see a lot common sense in these requirements. Some of them wouldn't fly here and I would never support a gun grab (Wouldn't happen anyway).

Gun control and firearms possession in Germany – DW – 12/12/2022

Germany considers tougher gun laws after a suspected coup attempt linked to the far-right Reichsbürger group. DW looks at Germany's gun ownership laws.

www.dw.com

its not a loophole,, its the right of every american do do business with another,,,

Of course. But in the case of a car, even if it is a clunker that you are selling to a neighbor for cash, there will still be a title transferred that will necessitate a change in registration, license plates, insurance (maybe).
Some entity will have a record of it Not so with guns. I have no problem with you selling your gun to your neighbor..as long as it goes through a licensed broker. Ergo, registration of sale and transfer of ownership...along with the requisite thorough
background check. Both cars and guns can kill people. Difference is, in almost all cases, we know who actually owns the car. Not so with guns.

Is this the one law that criminals will start obeying?

 

[daveman]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

Anyone who wants Americans disarmed does so because he wants to people to be helpless.

No one who wants Americans disarmed can be trusted with power. They intend to abuse it.

 

[daveman]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

figures they didnt exist,,

Obviously few care what you think. They can look it all up themselves these days, while you continue to look like an idiot.

I tried looking it up buit all I found was the 2nd amendment that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,

but feel free to keep makin shit up,,,

Yes, we know how diligent you are ....

Just curious...why do you use the royal "we"?

 

[Concerned American]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The second amendment guaranteed those rights at its inception. The 2008 decision just validated it. Moron.

 

[candycorn]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

Most other nations on earth have been around longer than our 233 year old republic...how have they avoided having a population that doesn't live in constant fear of being shot down? Hint: They don't have a 2nd amendment that allows anyone to buy as many guns as they can afford

 

[Circe]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

True, but it isn't some outrageous requirement to require a basic firearms safety course as a prerequisite. We got them in Cub Scouts, in addition to what our parents taught us.

Nonsense: other posters are right, this is just a thin entering wedge to grab guns, duh.

Gun safety is not something that matters to the spree killers. That's the problem, and it's quite beside the point to pair gun safety training with crazy-guy massacres. Irrelevant. You keep suggesting thin entering wedges that are supposed to sound fine, okay ------------ but we are on to you and your plots to disarm everyone except the crazies and the criminals.

 

[DudleySmith]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

True, but it isn't some outrageous requirement to require a basic firearms safety course as a prerequisite. We got them in Cub Scouts, in addition to what our parents taught us.

Nonsense: other posters are right, this is just a thin entering wedge to grab guns, duh.

Gun safety is not something that matters to the spree killers. That's the problem, and it's quite beside the point to pair gun safety training with crazy-guy massacres. Irrelevant. You keep suggesting thin entering wedges that are supposed to sound fine, okay ------------ but we are on to you and your plots to disarm everyone except the crazies and the criminals.

Yeah, cuz of spree killers, we shouldn't do basic safety training, cuz some nutjobs don't. lol you cultists don't realize just how far gone you all are, while running around calling 'Everybody Else' sheeple and dumb.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

figures they didnt exist,,

Obviously few care what you think. They can look it all up themselves these days, while you continue to look like an idiot.

I tried looking it up buit all I found was the 2nd amendment that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,

but feel free to keep makin shit up,,,

Yes, we know how diligent you are ....

Just curious...why do you use the royal "we"?

I don't; you're just unable to make a competent rebuttal of what I said; that's because you spend way too much time in the fever swamps and lost your capacity to be objective on this issue and do your own research. We're no longer a rural country, and few have parents who are competent with firearms to bring them up with ingrained common sense about them. It's not 'The Good Old Days' any more, it's 2021 and there is no 'common culture' any more.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

figures they didnt exist,,

Obviously few care what you think. They can look it all up themselves these days, while you continue to look like an idiot.

I tried looking it up buit all I found was the 2nd amendment that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,

but feel free to keep makin shit up,,,

Yes, we know how diligent you are ....

Just curious...why do you use the royal "we"?

I don't; you're just unable to make a competent rebuttal of what I said; that's because you spend way too much time in the fever swamps and lost your capacity to be objective on this issue and do your own research.

youree the one that lacks a competent rebuttal,, you just keep saying things that arent real,,