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

[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 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

It's easier for them. Keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away, is a very difficult challenge. So just blame the legal Gun Owners for everything. They're just covering their asses.

How does a 15yr old in Chicago get a 9mm pistol? Law Enforcement needs to focus on answering that question. It's not a law abiding Gun Owner's fault that a 15yr old was allowed to obtain a 9mm pistol. That's all on Law Enforcement.

 

[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.

What does this even mean?

He's Canadian, it's always hard to tell what he's talking about

 

[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?

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.

Seriously, you can't read this sentence? You don't understand that it's an explanation for the right?

"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"

What about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not clear to you?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

There is no begging the question. Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

[kaz]

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.

There is no begging the question. Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not. Name them. What about that is unclear to 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

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.

Seriously, you can't read this sentence? You don't understand that it's an explanation for the right?

"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"

What about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not clear to you?

It must be a qualifier since there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

There is no begging the question. Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not. Name them. What about that is unclear to you?

Persons not specifically connected with militia service well regulated.

 

[kaz]

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.

There is no begging the question. Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not. Name them. What about that is unclear to you?

Persons not specifically connected with militia service well regulated.

That's the point, militias are of the people, so no one is not connected to a militia. Government does not define militias, the people do

 

[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?

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.

Seriously, you can't read this sentence? You don't understand that it's an explanation for the right?

"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"

What about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not clear to you?

It must be a qualifier since there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

You are functionally illiterate, it is very clear

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Seriously, you can't read this sentence? You don't understand that it's an explanation for the right?

"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"

What about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not clear to you?

It must be a qualifier since there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

You are functionally illiterate, it is very clear

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

Thus, It must be a qualifier since there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

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

There is no begging the question. Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not. Name them. What about that is unclear to you?

Persons not specifically connected with militia service well regulated.

That's the point, militias are of the people, so no one is not connected to a militia. Government does not define militias, the people do

Yes, only well regulated militias are specifically enumerated as necessary. Our Founding Father were Never ambiguous with the Most Excellent job they did at the convention with our supreme law of the land; it is only their Posterity on the Right that keeps slacking.

 

[CowboyTed]

I love the idiot right on this issue... No one is talking about taking guns away from responsible owners.

This is a issue about irresponsible owners and people who are designated towards violence.

The right controllers need a bad man with a gun so all the good ones buy more guns... Idiots...

There is an arms race between the bad man and the good man...

And this is all before we ask, not all bad men started off being bad men...

So a some gun control is needed or you are through wilful neglect arming criminals/mentally insane.

And if that doesn't help you. Here is what your main guy said:
“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”
--Ronald Reagan, in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.



“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989.



“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.



“With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

--Ronald Reagan, speech at George Washington University in a on March 29, 1991.



“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill.



“I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a press conference in Toronto on June 21, 1988, suggesting that prospective gun owners should have to receive training before purchasing a firearm.


“Well, I think there has to be some (gun) control.”

--Ronald Reagan, during a question-and-answer session with high-school students on November 14, 1988.

 

[danielpalos]

The right doesn't have a clue or a Cause. Rights in private property including the class called Arms, are secured in State Constitutions.

 

[paulitician]

The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.

Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.

 

[danielpalos]

Then, convince your own elected representatives y'all are not just flakes with your Arms and require nanny-State laws for your own good.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?

"Textualism is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."

Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, a vote decided by Scalia IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.

In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM and officiated SSM ceremonies, Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.

Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument. Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally - from the Militia. Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).

 

[Wry Catcher]

The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.

Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.

Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold. Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.

 

[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

If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?

"Textualism is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."

Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, decided IMO before the matter was heard before The Court. In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM, Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.

Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument. Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally - from the Militia. Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).

No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: "A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.

 

[Ernie S.]

So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed

Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.

Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns. Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.

Really? The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting. Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.

That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with. You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic

Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?

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

Every citizen? At All times? Are you sure? And, does that make any sense at all?

Subject to very few limitations.

 

[paulitician]

The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.

Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.

Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold. Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.

That's speculation on your part. But regardless, Law Enforcement gets paid to make sure the 15yr old doesn't get the firearm. It isn't paid to target law abiding Gun Owners.

It's time to really focus on keeping the guns from criminals and taking them away. Legal Gun Owners go through the legal process to acquire their firearms. They do the right thing. Time to stop targeting them. Too much valuable time and resources are being spent on that.