Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
just lousy reading comprehension?And yet the right is not protected for the well regulated militia. It is protected for the people. A word that you continuously demand that everyone ignore so that you can reject the actual meaning of the second amendment.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.No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.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.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.
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
only because you are clueless and Causeless; special pleading is for fullers of fallacy, not real men.gun control laws have been around since 2005.yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.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......
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
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.
Well regulated militia (of the whole and entire People) are declared necessary; not, the unorganized militia or gun lovers.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.No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.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.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.
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
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, it isn't. That is a simple appeal to ignorance. We have a First Amendment for that.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.No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.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.
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
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
Our Second Amendment clearly says that well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.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.No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.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.
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
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.
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?
like auto safety regulations don't make autos safer?gun laws do not put guns in peoples' handsdue to gun control laws.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
no. It's due to more guns in the hands of more responsible people
really you have asked every gun owner about posse duty?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?If you cannot provide some specific examples of "gun lovers" complaining about "posse duty" why don't you just say so?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.
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.
do you even know anyone who owns a gun?
due to more gun control laws that put more guns into more responsible 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
population? demographics accounts for most of it.then why do the states with the least regulation have the lowest murder rates and the states with the most regulation have the highest?yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.the actual stats don't claim they operate in a vacuum of special pleading; regulations can account for the decrease.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.......
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......
it increases the risk and safety and security of our free States. it is why, Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.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 wantthe kid won't get accidentally killed, with your weapon.so tell me how is restricting my ability to own and/ or carry guns going to stop a kid from getting killed accidentally?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?
yes, and gun safety statistics show it.been around a hell of a lot longer than thatgun control laws have been around since 2005.yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.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......
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
you are welcome prove which specific regulation improved auto safety.
yes, this is what it means. You simply appeal to ignorance of the law, and are clueless and Causeless, as a result.yes, that is exactly what it means; i don't need to lie; i have a good argument.No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.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.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.Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.
no it's what you think it means
It is a blatant appeal to ignorance of the law. There is no such Thing as a civilian operated militia. Only posses are civilian operated and require a sheriff's authorization.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.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
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
it is completely sequitur, you simply don't understand the topic. your propaganda is not the law.non sequiturOnly well regulated militia of the People are necessary.Only for the People who are a well regulated militia, for the security needs of a free State.That does not change the amendment. Given that well regulated militias are necessary it is the right of the people 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.
No matter how you parse the first statement, the right is STILL protected for the people.
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
guns in the hands of law abiding people do no such thingit increases the risk and safety and security of our free States. it is why, Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.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 wantthe kid won't get accidentally killed, with your weapon.so tell me how is restricting my ability to own and/ or carry guns going to stop a kid from getting killed accidentally?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?
yes, this is what it means. You simply appeal to ignorance of the law, and are clueless and Causeless, as a result.yes, that is exactly what it means; i don't need to lie; i have a good argument.No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.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.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.
no it's what you think it means
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.
The People are the Militia.
Only illegals to 10USC311 call, jaywalkers across State lines without inspection, black.
yes, and gun safety statistics show it.been around a hell of a lot longer than thatgun control laws have been around since 2005.yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.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......
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
you are welcome prove which specific regulation improved auto safety.
it is completely sequitur, you simply don't understand the topic. your propaganda is not the law.non sequiturOnly well regulated militia of the People are necessary.Only for the People who are a well regulated militia, for the security needs of a free State.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 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
yes, it does, due simply to the law of large numbers.guns in the hands of law abiding people do no such thingit increases the risk and safety and security of our free States. it is why, Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.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 wantthe kid won't get accidentally killed, with your weapon.so tell me how is restricting my ability to own and/ or carry guns going to stop a kid from getting killed accidentally?That you don't give a f**k about 50 kids?
just right wing fantasy?yes, this is what it means. You simply appeal to ignorance of the law, and are clueless and Causeless, as a result.yes, that is exactly what it means; i don't need to lie; i have a good argument.No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.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 it's what you think it means
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.
The People are the Militia.
Only illegals to 10USC311 call, jaywalkers across State lines without inspection, black.
it does not say a militia of the people it simply says militia. Well regulated in the vernacular of the 18th century did not mean government controlled it merely meant in good working order or disciplined.
The second makes no mention of why or for whom the people may keep and bear arms only that the peoples' right to do so shall not be infringed
demographics.yes, and gun safety statistics show it.been around a hell of a lot longer than thatgun control laws have been around since 2005.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
you are welcome prove which specific regulation improved auto safety.
then tell me why do the cities with the harshest gun laws also have the most crime and murder while the states with the most relaxed gun laws have the least crime and murder
