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

[Ernie S.]

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.

Allowing someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

This is why daniaeldoofus is on ignore

 

[danielpalos]

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?

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

This is why daniaeldoofus is on ignore

Because there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the first clause of any law?

 

[2aguy]

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.

So when the guy breaks into a home....and steals the gun..that is on the gun owner...you are a fucking moron.....when a gun store is broken into, when they use sledgehammers to pound their way through an exterior wall to get to the guns...that is on the gun store.....you are a fucking moron....

We can already arrest felons caught with guns....like the father of the 7 year old here in chicago....over 40 arrests, caught in a weapons possession violation...he was out the next day.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Allowing someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?

Sadly he isn't kidding....someone breaks into your home...and takes your stuff...and you are to blame.......they also think women deserved to be raped because their skirt was too short.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

 

[danielpalos]

I believe one way to keep Arms from criminals of the People is to turn them into well regulated militia of the People through Judicial forms of discretion.

 

[Ernie S.]

I used a gun to prevent an assault last night. It won't make the papers or crime statistics, but the guy rushing me noticed, I'll tell you THAT.

 

[danielpalos]

The pen or the word is mightier than the sword or the fist.

 

[kaz]

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

Gun laws are not for our own good, they are for criminals own good

 

[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

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).

Militias are the people, they are for defense. And they need guns to make defense effective. You trust government, not the people, so you are warping it. The founding fathers were saying the right of guns is for people to protect themselves. Which is clearly what we are arguing as well. Government is not there to protect you, and it's not there to stop you from protecting yourself.

 

[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

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.

True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia? My answer is simple, we all are. It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that. In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians

 

[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.

Gun laws are not for our own good, they are for criminals own good

Gun control laws are meant for the good of gun lovers without any clue or any Cause and who are considered specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.

 

[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, 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).

Militias are the people, they are for defense. And they need guns to make defense effective. You trust government, not the people, so you are warping it. The founding fathers were saying the right of guns is for people to protect themselves. Which is clearly what we are arguing as well. Government is not there to protect you, and it's not there to stop you from protecting yourself.

It is the security needs of a free State that are addressed by our Second Amendment not the People as Individuals..

 

[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.

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

Subject to very few limitations.

Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians

Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?

 

[kaz]

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

Gun laws are not for our own good, they are for criminals own good

Gun control laws are meant for the good of gun lovers without any clue or any Cause and who are considered specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.

What do you think a militia is exactly? How can a person be unconnected with a militia when militias are the people?

 

[kaz]

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

Subject to very few limitations.

Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians

Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?

I don't know, why don't you ask one?

 

[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

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).

Militias are the people, they are for defense. And they need guns to make defense effective. You trust government, not the people, so you are warping it. The founding fathers were saying the right of guns is for people to protect themselves. Which is clearly what we are arguing as well. Government is not there to protect you, and it's not there to stop you from protecting yourself.

It is the security needs of a free State that are addressed by our Second Amendment not the People as Individuals..

That makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government. How can that not be an individual right?