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

[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.

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.

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.

The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed as a result.

 

[Bonzi]

Give everyone a gun. Even playing field.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

If it is that simple, why doesn't it say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

It does since the People are the Militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Nope

Yup

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It never says that the people must be in a militia.

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.
Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.

 

[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.

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.

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. The People are the Militia.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It never says that the people must be in a militia.

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.
Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.

Who is unconnected with the Militia?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Give everyone a gun. Even playing field.

Ahh, I see. Let the stupid sort itself out (get my drift?)

Hmmm...

 

[Bonzi]

Give everyone a gun. Even playing field.

Ahh, I see. Let the stupid sort itself out (get my drift?)

Hmmm...

Seems easy enough ... well, not much

 

[hunarcy]

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.

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.

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. The People are the Militia.

And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. The People are the Militia.

And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?

 

[2aguy]

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.

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. The People are the Militia.

And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?

The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia. If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.

 

[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.

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. The People are the Militia.

And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?

The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia. If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.

They did say so, in the first clause; the Militia is the People.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. The People are the Militia.

And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?

The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia. If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.

Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. The People are the Militia.

And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?

The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia. If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.

Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.

Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[2aguy]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. The People are the Militia.

And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?

The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia. If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.

Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.

Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

yes..that is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.....Where does he say that only the militia may keep and bear arms? I'll await your quote.

 

[Ernie S.]

And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?

The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia. If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.

Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.

Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

yes..that is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.....Where does he say that only the militia may keep and bear arms? I'll await your quote.

He doesn't get the concept of individual rights or responsibility
SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment speaks to an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
In a sense, we can ignore the first clause and read:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?

The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia. If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.

Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.

Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

yes..that is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.....Where does he say that only the militia may keep and bear arms? I'll await your quote.

Our Second Amendment states only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union as a result--simply because, our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?

The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia. If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.

Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.

Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

yes..that is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.....Where does he say that only the militia may keep and bear arms? I'll await your quote.

He doesn't get the concept of individual rights or responsibility
SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment speaks to an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
In a sense, we can ignore the first clause and read:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, I don't get the concept since there are no Individual rights with collective terms. The Militia and the People are both collective terms, not Individual terms.

Here is what Individual terms look like in a Constitution:
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.

You have to excuse him, he's Canadian