Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[danielpalos]

Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns... 'cause that's how smart they are.

dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their own elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.

Again, what is that supposed to mean? Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership. Did you read my OP post? What if you address it?

dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law. Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.

Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.

 

[danielpalos]

No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.

No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.

Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.

It really is that simple, except to the right.

Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different. Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?

Interesting that you want a narrow literal interpretation of the Constitution right up until it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Only because only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment

 

[kaz]

No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.

No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.

Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.

It really is that simple, except to the right.

Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different. Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?

I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.

What part of these two statements do you not understand?

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

What about that militias ARE the people do you not understand?

 

[kaz]

Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns... 'cause that's how smart they are.

dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their own elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.

Again, what is that supposed to mean? Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership. Did you read my OP post? What if you address it?

dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law. Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.

Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.

What post did you address my OP question?

 

[kaz]

No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.

Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.

It really is that simple, except to the right.

Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different. Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?

Interesting that you want a narrow literal interpretation of the Constitution right up until it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Only because only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment

Right, militias of the people, I don't get what you think you are arguing. What do you think a militia of the people is exactly since you're saying it doesn't apply to all the people?

 

[kaz]

Daniel, "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"

Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier. The right is not limited

 

[paulitician]

Law Enforcement gets paid to keep guns away from criminals. It doesn't get paid to attack law abiding Gun Owners. Law Enforcement just isn't doing its job. All Citizens are in favor of going after the criminals.

So how does a 15yr old in Chicago get a 9mm pistol? That's on Law Enforcement. It's not on good law abiding Citizens who own guns. Time for Law Enforcement to be held accountable. Time for it to do the job.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.

Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.

It really is that simple, except to the right.

Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different. Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?

I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.

What part of these two statements do you not understand?

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

What about that militias ARE the people do you not understand?

Here it is again for your ease and convenience: Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

 

[danielpalos]

Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns... 'cause that's how smart they are.

dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their own elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.

Again, what is that supposed to mean? Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership. Did you read my OP post? What if you address it?

dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law. Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.

Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.

What post did you address my OP question?

the first post i made in your thread.

 

[kaz]

Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.

It really is that simple, except to the right.

Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different. Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?

I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.

What part of these two statements do you not understand?

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

What about that militias ARE the people do you not understand?

Here it is again for your ease and convenience: Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Again, my question is simple, and you're a simpleton. It's in your native language.

Militias are the people, so when you keep repeating that quote, who are you referring to who is not protected by the second amendment? Who can't have a gun?

 

[kaz]

Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns... 'cause that's how smart they are.

dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their own elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.

Again, what is that supposed to mean? Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership. Did you read my OP post? What if you address it?

dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law. Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.

Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.

What post did you address my OP question?

the first post i made in your thread.

There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join? You do like to hide, don't you?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, "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"

Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier. The right is not limited

The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

 

[paulitician]

Many Politicians and Law Enforcement are taking the lazy way out when it comes to the gun issue. It's much easier for them to attack law abiding Gun Owners. They should be focused on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. Anything other than that is just plain laziness and incompetence.

 

[kaz]

Daniel, "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"

Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier. The right is not limited

The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

What is your native language? It's sure not English. The first part in English is not a qualifier, it's an explanation. Is it Canadian?

 

[kaz]

Many Politicians and Law Enforcement are taking the lazy way out when it comes to the gun issue. It's much easier for them to attack law abiding Gun Owners. They should be focused on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. Anything other than that, is just laziness and incompetence.

It gets them off the hook. It's easier to just write gun laws and pretend they are doing something than actually do something. Then when people die because they are prevented from defending themselves, they just demand more gun laws. Like the scum bucket Obama does every time he uses a death to demand more laws preventing people from defending themselves

 

[danielpalos]

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; 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.

It really is that simple, except to the right.

Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different. Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?

I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.

What part of these two statements do you not understand?

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

What about that militias ARE the people do you not understand?

Here it is again for your ease and convenience: Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Again, my question is simple, and you're a simpleton. It's in your native language.

Militias are the people, so when you keep repeating that quote, who are you referring to who is not protected by the second amendment? Who can't have a gun?

Only simpletons don't understand my concise explanation. Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia";

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

Only those entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns... 'cause that's how smart they are.

dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their own elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.

What does this even mean?

 

[kaz]

dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their own elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.

Again, what is that supposed to mean? Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership. Did you read my OP post? What if you address it?

dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law. Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.

Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.

What post did you address my OP question?

the first post i made in your thread.

There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join? You do like to hide, don't you?

Talk about begging the question. Here is your first post in the thread, it has the same ambiguous statement I keep questioning now. Who is not protected by the second amendment since militias are the people?

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Our Second Amendment is my plan. Don't like it, don't vote for me.

 

[kaz]

Only simpletons don't understand my concise explanation. Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia";

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

Only those entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

Only simpletons don't understand my concise question. Name them. WHO is not protected by the second amendment?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, "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"

Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier. The right is not limited

The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

What is your native language? It's sure not English. The first part in English is not a qualifier, it's an explanation. Is it Canadian?

No, it is merely a reading comprehension issue on the part of those of your point of view. It must be a qualifier since their is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.