CDZ Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

[sakinago]

And you are wrong. The actual stats say everything.......

the actual stats don't claim they operate in a vacuum of special pleading; regulations can account for the decrease.

No....since we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense with most states not allowing it, to now every state having some form of carry ability and 15 million people, minimum, carrying guns for self defense......and not one law you point to that was passed in 1993 can be shown to have stopped criminals from getting guns......

yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.

Where are you're numbers, since 2005 guns sales have increased and the drop in crime has coincided with that. Where are the gun control laws that coincide with drops in crime rates? Should be easy to look up. I've already posted my numbers

gun control laws have been around since 2005.

you are welcome prove which specific regulation improved auto safety.

What...your post makes no sense in response to mine.

A. I have zero burden to prove specific auto regulation and how it improves auto safety not only because it's your argument you've been throwing out there, it's also a false equivalency, of which I stated many times. I never brought up regulations with auto safety, you did. Why would I go out and research it?

B. Gun control laws have been out much longer than 2005, what I cited was a correlation with a drop in crime to a steady and ongoing increased gun sales since 2005. There haven't been many gun control laws on a federal level enacted since then. The gun control laws on a city and state level, show an increase in crime after implementation. You've made zero counter point to this.

C. I'm not sure the actual numbers in auto regulations and auto safety would actually help you in this argument. Again I did not bring it up, you did, so be MY guest and look them up. But it is still a moot point since it is a false equivalency, and a completely different argument since there is not a constitutional amendment barring federal infringement on automobiles, which should be step one for you

D. You seemed to have dropped your argument that the 2nd was intended only for the militia, which is to be interpreted as the military in modern times. Again this should be step one for you, but you have made zero counterpoint to any of this, and have just spewed left wing talking points with no basis, of which I feel like I have fairly shut down as a viable argument...with actual proof.

 

[Picaro]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

Again if your questioning the meaning of the 2nd, look up what the founders said about it at the time, it's that simple. Also see how it was put into practice at the time...BTW your English is getting much better Muhammad. I've already posted writings from the founders at the time

The People are the Militia. Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia of the People.

Yes, and not only that, try and pin down who they meant when they refer to 'the people'. Hint: It didn't mean everybody, it meant a select few, and that's how state laws meant the term, too.

 

[sakinago]

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

Again if your questioning the meaning of the 2nd, look up what the founders said about it at the time, it's that simple. Also see how it was put into practice at the time...BTW your English is getting much better Muhammad. I've already posted writings from the founders at the time

The People are the Militia. Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia of the People.

Yes, and not only that, try and pin down who they meant when they refer to 'the people'. Hint: It didn't mean everybody, it meant a select few, and that's how state laws meant the term, too.

No, the militia (civilian operated) was supposed to keep both the government , and the regular military in check.

This will be the third freaking time I'm posting this. See 47.4 and 47.7 if your truly wondering what the founders intentions were

Jefferson on Politics & Government: The Military

 

[sakinago]

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

Again if your questioning the meaning of the 2nd, look up what the founders said about it at the time, it's that simple. Also see how it was put into practice at the time...BTW your English is getting much better Muhammad. I've already posted writings from the founders at the time

The People are the Militia. Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia of the People.

Yes, and not only that, try and pin down who they meant when they refer to 'the people'. Hint: It didn't mean everybody, it meant a select few, and that's how state laws meant the term, too.

Seriously, we have a wealth of indisputable information on what the founders actually intended with this law, as well as how it was actually practiced. Even though the language is still very strong in the second, the left still somehow gets hung up on this. This is revisionist history at its finest.

 

[yiostheoy]

Seriously, we have a wealth of indisputable information on what the founders actually intended with this law, as well as how it was actually practiced. Even though the language is still very strong in the second, the left still somehow gets hung up on this. This is revisionist history at its finest.

The only thing that matters is what 5 out of the 9 SCOTUS Justices believe.

With Scalia's death they are split 4 to 4 on this now.

The best summary of the issue is currently the Heller case.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[yiostheoy]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

"well regulated militia of da people" white or red?

Originally, only White. Not Black nor Red.

 

[sakinago]

Seriously, we have a wealth of indisputable information on what the founders actually intended with this law, as well as how it was actually practiced. Even though the language is still very strong in the second, the left still somehow gets hung up on this. This is revisionist history at its finest.

The only thing that matters is what 5 out of the 9 SCOTUS Justices believe.

With Scalia's death they are split 4 to 4 on this now.

The best summary of the issue is currently the Heller case.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

SCOTUS can act unconstitutionally at any time it does not make them right or out standard bearer for moral authority. A great deal of legal gymnastics were done by the SCOTUS to justify internment camps in a politically charged SCOTUS at the time. Also more recently SCOTUS struck down DOMA saying it was a states rights issue, and then a mere 2 years later said states have no say in the matter...why should a politically charged SCOTUS, acting outside of their allotted power be our ultimate authority on this issue?

 

[Skull Pilot]

More ridiculous analogies. Nobody carries their fricking swimming pool around with them in public for kids to drown in, and yes many jurisdictions have safety regulations for them, too. But hey, go ahead and start some ridiculous campaign to 'de-regulate swimming pools', so we can all laugh at that as well. It would be hilarious.

OK so tell me how many legally licensed CCW permit holders have accidentally shot a kid while carrying?

I've never said I was opposed to CCW permits. Ask somebody who is. Sorry but most people, except for cranks, want untrained people running around with firearms in public without some sort competency test, and they don't want a group of 8 year olds pooling their lunch money and being able to go buy real pistols to play cowboys n indians with, you know, the sort of 'freedom' some of the cranks here are for. CCW permits require some sort of test.

yeah I see 8 year old kids in the gun shop all the time
In mt state I had to take both classroom and range courses of course it was nothing anyone who has ever shot a gun doesn't know. I have to have my fingerprints on file like a common criminal as well.

the fact is that the vast majority of CCW permit holders take the responsibility very seriously

 

[Picaro]

More ridiculous analogies. Nobody carries their fricking swimming pool around with them in public for kids to drown in, and yes many jurisdictions have safety regulations for them, too. But hey, go ahead and start some ridiculous campaign to 'de-regulate swimming pools', so we can all laugh at that as well. It would be hilarious.

OK so tell me how many legally licensed CCW permit holders have accidentally shot a kid while carrying?

I've never said I was opposed to CCW permits. Ask somebody who is. Sorry but most people, except for cranks, want untrained people running around with firearms in public without some sort competency test, and they don't want a group of 8 year olds pooling their lunch money and being able to go buy real pistols to play cowboys n indians with, you know, the sort of 'freedom' some of the cranks here are for. CCW permits require some sort of test.

yeah I see 8 year old kids in the gun shop all the time
In mt state I had to take both classroom and range courses of course it was nothing anyone who has ever shot a gun doesn't know. I have to have my fingerprints on file like a common criminal as well.

the fact is that the vast majority of CCW permit holders take the responsibility very seriously

The fact is I never said a thing to the contrary; I'm not against CCW, never have been, so I guess you're agreeing with me. And I agree people should be required to take classroom and range courses if they're going to carry in public. I don't see a point in requiring that for those who keep them in their houses, but states are free to set their own requirements, and that includes requiring safety courses if they have children in the house, if they so choose to pass such legislation. The 'Purists', however, seem to think otherwise, and that indeed 'da ebul guvmint' can't restrict anybody, even 6 or 8 year olds, from buying them, based on their arguments. They claim there can be no restrictions at all.

 

[Picaro]

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

"well regulated militia of da people" white or red?

Originally, only White. Not Black nor Red.

And not even all whites could, for that matter, at least not in every state.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Certainly, it would be nice to have the greatest amount of free choice and liberty for adults; no prohibition, no identity cards or controls, no pollution and poisoning imposed upon the innocent, etc. Rational people know that carrying firearms all the time is unnecessary (with tendencies to paranoia) and dangerous.

not to mention, an increase in accidents due to more, rather than less, non-well regulated militia having access to guns.

And now accidental death by gun...again, from the CDC....notice again that as more Americans owned and carried guns the rate has gone down, not up......you are wrong...

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....486

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

due to gun control laws.

no. It's due to more guns in the hands of more responsible people

You are dodging the question.

i am on the left, not the right. the right is not advocating for a posse duty registry or a militia registry, and the Only "gun" registries needed in our several and sovereign, United States.

If you cannot provide some specific examples of "gun lovers" complaining about "posse duty" why don't you just say so?

You statement remains a ridiculous unsupported assertion until you quote some of these gun lovers complaining about "posse duty". Personally I have never in my 49 years on this Earth heard a single person complain about "posse duty. And apparently neither have you.

they always complain about having to muster. i have already asked them; why not ask them yourself, instead of appealing to ignorance or a potential fallacy on my part, for political purposes?

really you have asked every gun owner about posse duty?

do you even know anyone who owns a gun?

due to more gun control laws that put more guns into more responsible hands.

gun laws do not put guns in peoples' hands
in fact most gun laws are add ons to other crimes and not specific to buying a weapon. And if gun laws work so well then tell me why do those prohibited by law to own a gun commit most murders and crimes with guns

seems to me the gun laws don't work at all. Just look at Detroit, Oakland, Chicago all have some of the toughest most restrictive gun laws in the country and also extremely high murder rates

Now Wyoming and Vermont have some of the least restrictive gun laws and also have some of the lowest murder rates in the country

 

[Skull Pilot]

No.....as actual facts show, from the CDC and the FBI, as more Americans own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down by 47%....and our accident rates went down as well...you are just wrong.

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

And you are wrong. The actual stats say everything.......

the actual stats don't claim they operate in a vacuum of special pleading; regulations can account for the decrease.

No....since we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense with most states not allowing it, to now every state having some form of carry ability and 15 million people, minimum, carrying guns for self defense......and not one law you point to that was passed in 1993 can be shown to have stopped criminals from getting guns......

yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.

then why do the states with the least regulation have the lowest murder rates and the states with the most regulation have the highest?

 

[Skull Pilot]

This should be obvious to anyone who understands the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and how we catch criminals.......if you are a law abiding citizen, you should be able to carry a gun either concealed or open......in any state in the union without fear of arrest or prosecution...why don't you anti gunners get that?

I have worked in hosptals almost all of my adult life-------I have seen mothers lying on the emergency room floor screaming (some kid found dad's gun)

Yeah.......out of 357 million guns in private hands about 50 kids a year have that happen.........and the relevance to this thread would be?

That you don't give a f**k about 50 kids?

so tell me how is restricting my ability to own and/ or carry guns going to stop a kid from getting killed accidentally?

the kid won't get accidentally killed, with your weapon.

thst's right which is why I as a law abiding citizen should be able to own any kind of and as many guns as I want

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you are wrong. The actual stats say everything.......

the actual stats don't claim they operate in a vacuum of special pleading; regulations can account for the decrease.

No....since we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense with most states not allowing it, to now every state having some form of carry ability and 15 million people, minimum, carrying guns for self defense......and not one law you point to that was passed in 1993 can be shown to have stopped criminals from getting guns......

yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.

Where are you're numbers, since 2005 guns sales have increased and the drop in crime has coincided with that. Where are the gun control laws that coincide with drops in crime rates? Should be easy to look up. I've already posted my numbers

gun control laws have been around since 2005.

you are welcome prove which specific regulation improved auto safety.

been around a hell of a lot longer than that

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

yes, that is exactly what it means; i don't need to lie; i have a good argument.

no it's what you think it means

 

[Picaro]

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

Again if your questioning the meaning of the 2nd, look up what the founders said about it at the time, it's that simple. Also see how it was put into practice at the time...BTW your English is getting much better Muhammad. I've already posted writings from the founders at the time

The People are the Militia. Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia of the People.

Yes, and not only that, try and pin down who they meant when they refer to 'the people'. Hint: It didn't mean everybody, it meant a select few, and that's how state laws meant the term, too.

No, the militia (civilian operated) was supposed to keep both the government , and the regular military in check.

This will be the third freaking time I'm posting this. See 47.4 and 47.7 if your truly wondering what the founders intentions were

Jefferson on Politics & Government: The Military

And so what? What did Jefferson use Federal troops for in his second term? You confuse political rhetoric at some point in time for expediency for what he really believed and practiced, as did many another 'Founder', when it came to existential needs. And as it turned out, relying on such haphazard things as 'state militias' was abandoned in favor of standing armies and navies, as a practical necessity. Even the Southern Confederacy had to face this fact when they tried to organize a defense against Lincoln's invasions

 

[Skull Pilot]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

That does not change the amendment. Given that well regulated militias are necessary it is the right of the people to bear arms.

No matter how you parse the first statement, the right is STILL protected for the people.

Only for the People who are a well regulated militia, for the security needs of a free State.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

The right wing wants to eliminate sanctuary cities for illegals. 10USC311 is also federal law and enjoys federal supremacy.

the militia IS the people therefore the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary.

non sequitur

 

[Picaro]

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

Again if your questioning the meaning of the 2nd, look up what the founders said about it at the time, it's that simple. Also see how it was put into practice at the time...BTW your English is getting much better Muhammad. I've already posted writings from the founders at the time

The People are the Militia. Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia of the People.

Yes, and not only that, try and pin down who they meant when they refer to 'the people'. Hint: It didn't mean everybody, it meant a select few, and that's how state laws meant the term, too.

Seriously, we have a wealth of indisputable information on what the founders actually intended with this law, as well as how it was actually practiced. Even though the language is still very strong in the second, the left still somehow gets hung up on this. This is revisionist history at its finest.

Yes, seriously we do have a wealth of rhetoric, and we also have a wealth of real history of many of them changing their minds and doing something different in actual practice. The revisionism is entirely on the ideological purists side. Many of these 'Founders' went on to remain political powers in their own states and some became Presidents who didn't seem to have the same interpretations you and some others have invented for them, including who got to be one of 'the People' in the way they meant the term.

 

[Picaro]

I have worked in hosptals almost all of my adult life-------I have seen mothers lying on the emergency room floor screaming (some kid found dad's gun)

Yeah.......out of 357 million guns in private hands about 50 kids a year have that happen.........and the relevance to this thread would be?

That you don't give a f**k about 50 kids?

so tell me how is restricting my ability to own and/ or carry guns going to stop a kid from getting killed accidentally?

the kid won't get accidentally killed, with your weapon.

thst's right which is why I as a law abiding citizen should be able to own any kind of and as many guns as I want

Federal law doesn't protect that right, according to the 'states rights' crowd; of course they contradict themselves all the time. In any case if your state govt. and its voters want to they can indeed tell you what you can or can't own, and the Feds have no say in the matter according to the Purists.

 

[xband]

More ridiculous analogies. Nobody carries their fricking swimming pool around with them in public for kids to drown in, and yes many jurisdictions have safety regulations for them, too. But hey, go ahead and start some ridiculous campaign to 'de-regulate swimming pools', so we can all laugh at that as well. It would be hilarious.

OK so tell me how many legally licensed CCW permit holders have accidentally shot a kid while carrying?

I've never said I was opposed to CCW permits. Ask somebody who is. Sorry but most people, except for cranks, want untrained people running around with firearms in public without some sort competency test, and they don't want a group of 8 year olds pooling their lunch money and being able to go buy real pistols to play cowboys n indians with, you know, the sort of 'freedom' some of the cranks here are for. CCW permits require some sort of test.

yeah I see 8 year old kids in the gun shop all the time
In mt state I had to take both classroom and range courses of course it was nothing anyone who has ever shot a gun doesn't know. I have to have my fingerprints on file like a common criminal as well.

the fact is that the vast majority of CCW permit holders take the responsibility very seriously

The fact is I never said a thing to the contrary; I'm not against CCW, never have been, so I guess you're agreeing with me. And I agree people should be required to take classroom and range courses if they're going to carry in public. I don't see a point in requiring that for those who keep them in their houses, but states are free to set their own requirements, and that includes requiring safety courses if they have children in the house, if they so choose to pass such legislation. The 'Purists', however, seem to think otherwise, and that indeed 'da ebul guvmint' can't restrict anybody, even 6 or 8 year olds, from buying them, based on their arguments. They claim there can be no restrictions at all.

I don't have to go to no stinking gun school because I can out shoot the gun instructor. I played Quick Draw more than a few times.