It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[Sun Devil 92]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

You cannot compromise with people you have nothing in common with. You cannot compromise when two party's have different goals.

Let's give it a try.
If the citizen must lose some if not all of their rights to a firearm the government must also be disarmed including obama's secret service guards.

Are you on mental medication...?

Translation: he's got a point.

 

[toobfreak]

It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

Keep hanging onto your FANTASY that you will ever ban firearms and remove them from every home in America by force because YOU don't like them and cannot be trusted to handle them responsibly. 50 MILLION peaceful and responsible citizens, police and vets (the largest standing army in the world) with 270 MILLION guns and rifles of every kind say otherwise, shithead.

At least grasping at empty dreams keeps you off the streets where the community feels a lot safer.

 

[Lakhota]

This is how it started with tobacco.

 

[Lakhota]

Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law

The winds of change are blowing.

 

[Lakhota]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

Proof that you don't understand a fucking thing about how our country is governed. The military is not a socialist entity the preamble proves this with the statement "Provide for the common defense" the Fed is obligated to provide a military and we pay taxes to support this.

As you loons always seem to purposely do, you conveniently forgot the last part of the 2nd Amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[The Professor]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms has two purposes: (1) to prevent the Federal Government from interfering with the rights of States and (2) to grant each citizen the use of a firearm for self protection and other lawful purposes, completely unrelated to service in the Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Conclusion: The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right completely unrelated to membership in a militia. However the right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions. What constitutes a reasonable restriction is a matter for the courts to decide. Anyone who is unaware of the SCOTUS decision needs to find different news sources. People read the Drudge Report know better.

 

[Aponi]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

You need to be thinking stfu your a moron

 

[Soupnazi630]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

The military is not socialist.

The second amendment is a protection for individual rights not a militia

 

[Cellblock2429]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

/——/ It’s our National Guard you nincompoop.

 

[Lakhota]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

The military is not socialist.

The second amendment is a protection for individual rights not a militia

Yes, it is.

1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world. It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

 

[Ambivalent1]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

No they don't, those Leftwing loser buzz words. Compromise to a nut like you is complete capitulation to your desires.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

Then you should work to get rid of the 2nd.

Till then you are not free to just ignore it like it is not there.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Cellblock2429]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

/-----/ "Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"
Hardcore Gun Grabbers need to be thinking about two words: FU*K YOU

 

[Rustic]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

Lol
Washington redskin,
Don’t fix what ain’t broken

 

[Rustic]

This is how it started with tobacco.

Washington redskin,
Tobacco is not an right... dumbass

 

[Blues Man]

This is how it started with tobacco.

Washington redskin,
Tobacco is not an right... dumbass

I always found this funny.

People can do all kinds of things to their own bodies because they have the right to for example, plastic surgery, elective surgeries, cosmetic surgeries, piercing anyth8ing they can think of, tattoos, eating so much they that they get so fat they can't move etc etc

With all that why doesn't a person have the right to smoke whatever the hell they want?

 

[Cellblock2429]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

Then you should work to get rid of the 2nd.

Till then you are not free to just ignore it like it is not there.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

/-----/ "Then you should work to get rid of the 2nd."
Because it's impossible to fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back.

 

[Papageorgio]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

The military is not socialist.

The second amendment is a protection for individual rights not a militia

Yes, it is.

1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world. It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

Daily Kos op-ed piece is your proof? Lol! Now that is pretty silly.

 

[justoffal]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

Shove it up your ass.

1.) I don't care if guns kill people...don't give a shit.
2.) Criminals WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS
3.) The Constitution condemns YOU....NOT ME.

The second amendment isn't going anywhere but you definitely should.

Jo