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

[2aguy]

As the man said, there are liars, damn liars and statistics. Something to keep in mind when reading, if anyone does - the baffle them with bullshit - posts of 2aguy.

My links are from the CDC, FBI, and actual researchers on crime.......but go ahead....talk out of your ass.......but even Jim Carrey couldn't make that interesting....

Cherry picking a stat or group of stats to prove your bias is what you do. Empirical evidence from Columbine forward does not support your intended point. Guns kill and maim people: intentionally, unintentionally and accidently

And the evidence from Columbine...here is a list of the deaths from mass public shootings compiled by Mother Jones, and anti gun source....if it wasn't for the muslim jihadi in Orlando....whose father supported hilary.......we would have had 22 people murdered in mass public shootings....the whole year...with muslim terrorism thrown in....it becomes 71....that is less than the people murdered by Truck in Nice, France....over 80........even with our muslim terrorist killing those people in Orlando.....

Each year....law abiding Americans use guns to stop violent crime 1,500,000 times ....according to the study done by bill clinton's Department of Justice....

1,500,000 vs. 22 (71 with muslim terrorism thrown in)......


And if you take out muslim terrorists......2016 had fewer dead from mass public shootings than the year of Columbine...

So please...what empirical evidence are you talking about.......I suspect you were just talking out of your ass again....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2016: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 73.

2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42 ( Columbine)
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994...5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35 (Looby's cafe)
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1984...28
1983...none listed
1982...8

 

[2aguy]

The fact is that normal, law abiding people do not commit murder, with guns or by other means...and the gun does not cause normal, law abiding people to become killers.....90% of murderers have long histories of crime and violence going back to their teen years.....the anti gun lie that a gun in the home turns normal people into murderers is a lie.......

 

[Pogo]

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

You're implying a fallacious conclusion here. Without knowing the details of what these cities and their laws might be, it could well be that "cities with the harshest gun laws" have those laws exactly because they already had "the most crime and murder". You can't take history as a snapshot as if you pass a law today and everything clears up tomorrow. Which came first?

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

On the contrary it certainly does. It's in the first thirteen words. I raised that issue the other day. FA_Q2 tried to shoot it down but it matters, because it leads to a next question, that being what it means. To which it looks like this thread has already proceeded.

 

[Pogo]

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

Tanks?

Antiaircraft bazookas?

Submarines equipped with torpedoes?

Nukes?

The 2A doesn't say "guns". It says "arms". Whelp --- those are all "arms".

 

[sakinago]

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

Tanks?

Antiaircraft bazookas?

Submarines equipped with torpedoes?

Nukes?

The 2A doesn't say "guns". It says "arms". Whelp --- those are all "arms".

Arms, as in firearms. Submarines are submarines. Nukes are nukes, anti aircraft missiles are missiles. Tanks actually can be legally owned, but are also tanks or mobilized armor.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

Actually it may INDEED be what it says --- which is why I brought up the initial subordinate clause several pages ago, noting that it's never been explained.

Note the verb "may be". Or may not. No one knows.

Again here it is:

"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"​

The subordinate clause is in dark red. The first comma may presumably be ignored, leaving "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".

That's a reasoning. "BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary etc etc, THEREFORE the right of the people etc etc etc.\

Implicit in this wording is that outside the domain of a 'well regulated militia', the right of the people to keep and bear arms can indeed be infringed. The initial phrase sets up the conditions for what follows, i.e. if the security of a free state did not require a well regulated militia, then the right of the people to keep and bear arms COULD be infringed. But in the event it takes the militia/security premise as a given, and therefore the right cannot be infringed.

But---
Does that mean ONLY as Daniel put it --- "may not be infringed when bearing arms for their State or Union"?

It does look that way at least by implication. Why else would the phrase even be there articulating a specific purpose use for bearing arms?

Again a Constitution is an absolute. It has no need to make arguments; it's not making a case before a jury and waiting for a decision yea or nay --- it simply declares, "this is how things are going to work, period".

No other Amendment anywhere -- and I'm willing to bet nowhere else in the Constitution -- does it step out of character to explain why it's doing what it's doing --- and nor should it. So if this phrase is not meant to limit the bearing of arms to a well regulated militia ---- then why is it in there at all? It serves no purpose. On the other hand if it is meant to limit to a well regulated militia ----- then why doesn't it simply come out and say that?

Now that's what I mean by an intention that's never been explained.

 

[Pogo]

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

Tanks?

Antiaircraft bazookas?

Submarines equipped with torpedoes?

Nukes?

The 2A doesn't say "guns". It says "arms". Whelp --- those are all "arms".

Arms, as in firearms. Submarines are submarines. Nukes are nukes, anti aircraft missiles are missiles. Tanks actually can be legally owned, but are also tanks or mobilized armor.

Doesn't say "firearms" --- it says "Arms". Nukes are arms. Torpedoes on the submarines are arms.

This of course leads us to the context of what "arms" meant in the 18th century since obviously those technologies did not yet exist, nor did plane bombers or drones, nor did the Minié ball which itself considerably changed the definition of what "arms" could do ----- and the attendant question of whether the Founders, had they had the clairvoyance to anticipate these future technologies, would have second-guessed their wording here, or whether they really did mean that if I can afford one I can have a nuke.

 

[Muhammed]

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

Tanks?

Antiaircraft bazookas?

Submarines equipped with torpedoes?

Nukes?

The 2A doesn't say "guns". It says "arms". Whelp --- those are all "arms".

Arms, as in firearms. Submarines are submarines. Nukes are nukes, anti aircraft missiles are missiles. Tanks actually can be legally owned, but are also tanks or mobilized armor.

Doesn't say "firearms" --- it says "Arms". Nukes are arms. Torpedoes on the submarines are arms.

This of course leads us to the context of what "arms" meant in the 18th century since obviously those technologies did not yet exist, nor did plane bombers or drones, nor did the Minié ball which itself considerably changed the definition of what "arms" could do ----- and the attendant question of whether the Founders, had they had the clairvoyance to anticipate these future technologies, would have second-guessed their wording here, or whether they really did mean that if I can afford one I can have a nuke.

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

 

[Pogo]

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

Tanks?

Antiaircraft bazookas?

Submarines equipped with torpedoes?

Nukes?

The 2A doesn't say "guns". It says "arms". Whelp --- those are all "arms".

Arms, as in firearms. Submarines are submarines. Nukes are nukes, anti aircraft missiles are missiles. Tanks actually can be legally owned, but are also tanks or mobilized armor.

Doesn't say "firearms" --- it says "Arms". Nukes are arms. Torpedoes on the submarines are arms.

This of course leads us to the context of what "arms" meant in the 18th century since obviously those technologies did not yet exist, nor did plane bombers or drones, nor did the Minié ball which itself considerably changed the definition of what "arms" could do ----- and the attendant question of whether the Founders, had they had the clairvoyance to anticipate these future technologies, would have second-guessed their wording here, or whether they really did mean that if I can afford one I can have a nuke.

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Actually it may INDEED be what it says --- which is why I brought up the initial subordinate clause several pages ago, noting that it's never been explained.

Note the verb "may be". Or may not. No one knows.

Again here it is:

"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"​

The subordinate clause is in dark red. The first comma may presumably be ignored, leaving "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".

That's a reasoning. "BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary etc etc, THEREFORE the right of the people etc etc etc.\

Implicit in this wording is that outside the domain of a 'well regulated militia', the right of the people to keep and bear arms can indeed be infringed. The initial phrase sets up the conditions for what follows, i.e. if the security of a free state did not require a well regulated militia, then the right of the people to keep and bear arms COULD be infringed. But in the event it takes the militia/security premise as a given, and therefore the right cannot be infringed.

But---
Does that mean ONLY as Daniel put it --- "may not be infringed when bearing arms for their State or Union"?

It does look that way at least by implication. Why else would the phrase even be there articulating a specific purpose use for bearing arms?

Again a Constitution is an absolute. It has no need to make arguments; it's not making a case before a jury and waiting for a decision yea or nay --- it simply declares, "this is how things are going to work, period".

No other Amendment anywhere -- and I'm willing to bet nowhere else in the Constitution -- does it step out of character to explain why it's doing what it's doing --- and nor should it. So if this phrase is not meant to limit the bearing of arms to a well regulated militia ---- then why is it in there at all? It serves no purpose. On the other hand if it is meant to limit to a well regulated militia ----- then why doesn't it simply come out and say that?

Now that's what I mean by an intention that's never been explained.

Pogo we went over this. Intentions were clearly explained by the founders. Intentions being a CIVILIAN operated militia being necessary to keep both the government and its coinciding professional military in check, from a crossing of the rubicon like moment. Because in a free state, the government can not hold a monopoly of force. See my previous posting in response to this, specifically 47.4 and 47.7, as well as the rest of it. Also see how it was actually put into practice. Also reference the country our constitution was modeled after, Switzerland, and how their civilian militia operates versus their uniform army.

Again you glaze over the fact of removing a comma, operating under the pretense that it was intended as a pause, not a separate statement. Even offering you the benefit of the doubt that the militia is the same as the military ... well I'll have Mr. Penn Gillette explain for me why that argument still doesn't hold water.

penn gillete explains the 2nd - Bing video

So are you suggesting that the 2nds intentions were to say that the government cannot infringe upon the right of the military to bear arms? Why would there be a need to make that an amendment? Why would a government restrict the powers of its military whose purpose is to defend the government?

 

[sakinago]

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

Tanks?

Antiaircraft bazookas?

Submarines equipped with torpedoes?

Nukes?

The 2A doesn't say "guns". It says "arms". Whelp --- those are all "arms".

Arms, as in firearms. Submarines are submarines. Nukes are nukes, anti aircraft missiles are missiles. Tanks actually can be legally owned, but are also tanks or mobilized armor.

Doesn't say "firearms" --- it says "Arms". Nukes are arms. Torpedoes on the submarines are arms.

This of course leads us to the context of what "arms" meant in the 18th century since obviously those technologies did not yet exist, nor did plane bombers or drones, nor did the Minié ball which itself considerably changed the definition of what "arms" could do ----- and the attendant question of whether the Founders, had they had the clairvoyance to anticipate these future technologies, would have second-guessed their wording here, or whether they really did mean that if I can afford one I can have a nuke.

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Wrong, you originally quote it accurately, then misquote it purposefully, stating that a comma has no meaning (when it indeed has significant meaning) for no other reason than that's how you prefer to read the 2nd based on an a priori fallacy. And there's no reason it has to be clausal, other than you prefer it to be a clausal statement, also an a priori fallacy. And again the intentions were clearly written about at the time.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Actually it may INDEED be what it says --- which is why I brought up the initial subordinate clause several pages ago, noting that it's never been explained.

Note the verb "may be". Or may not. No one knows.

Again here it is:

"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"​

The subordinate clause is in dark red. The first comma may presumably be ignored, leaving "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".

That's a reasoning. "BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary etc etc, THEREFORE the right of the people etc etc etc.\

Implicit in this wording is that outside the domain of a 'well regulated militia', the right of the people to keep and bear arms can indeed be infringed. The initial phrase sets up the conditions for what follows, i.e. if the security of a free state did not require a well regulated militia, then the right of the people to keep and bear arms COULD be infringed. But in the event it takes the militia/security premise as a given, and therefore the right cannot be infringed.

But---
Does that mean ONLY as Daniel put it --- "may not be infringed when bearing arms for their State or Union"?

It does look that way at least by implication. Why else would the phrase even be there articulating a specific purpose use for bearing arms?

Again a Constitution is an absolute. It has no need to make arguments; it's not making a case before a jury and waiting for a decision yea or nay --- it simply declares, "this is how things are going to work, period".

No other Amendment anywhere -- and I'm willing to bet nowhere else in the Constitution -- does it step out of character to explain why it's doing what it's doing --- and nor should it. So if this phrase is not meant to limit the bearing of arms to a well regulated militia ---- then why is it in there at all? It serves no purpose. On the other hand if it is meant to limit to a well regulated militia ----- then why doesn't it simply come out and say that?

Now that's what I mean by an intention that's never been explained.

Pogo we went over this. Intentions were clearly explained by the founders. Intentions being a CIVILIAN operated militia being necessary to keep both the government and its coinciding professional military in check, from a crossing of the rubicon like moment. Because in a free state, the government can not hold a monopoly of force. See my previous posting in response to this, specifically 47.4 and 47.7, as well as the rest of it. Also see how it was actually put into practice. Also reference the country our constitution was modeled after, Switzerland, and how their civilian militia operates versus their uniform army.

Again you glaze over the fact of removing a comma, operating under the pretense that it was intended as a pause, not a separate statement. Even offering you the benefit of the doubt that the militia is the same as the military ... well I'll have Mr. Penn Gillette explain for me why that argument still doesn't hold water.

penn gillete explains the 2nd - Bing video

So are you suggesting that the 2nds intentions were to say that the government cannot infringe upon the right of the military to bear arms? Why would there be a need to make that an amendment? Why would a government restrict the powers of its military whose purpose is to defend the government?

No I don't remember having been over this --- I do, but not with you. And I have no idea what "47.4" or "47.7" might mean. My query is about the wording.

I don't know of a significance for the first comma other than a simple pause, for which it was often used in that less-linguistically-precise time, but I'm always willing to entertain theories as to what else it could do.

Let's put it back in:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the Security of a free State, the right of the People..." etc.

If we push "being necessary to the Security of a free State forward to modify the right of the People (i.e. to mean "whereas the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state") ---- the gun fetishists might like it but there's a problem. It leaves the phrase "A well regulated Militia" sitting all by itself, doing nothing, all alone. No verb, no connection, no nothing.

I don't see how you can read it that way.

Again the question is --- if that subordinate clause is not placed there as a specific limitation on what follows ................................. then what IS its purpose? A Constitution is not written carelessly. Whatever language is in there, has a purpose. If it's not a limiting qualification then ---- what is it?

I cannot have a "preference" for what I'd like the clause to be ---- it's already in there. It's not going away even if posters like the previous one choose to look right past it.

I had a look at the PJ video but it was just him and Teller sitting in an audience watching a guy in a costume called "Piff the Magic Dragon". I don't quite get the significance of that.

 

[Muhammed]

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

Tanks?

Antiaircraft bazookas?

Submarines equipped with torpedoes?

Nukes?

The 2A doesn't say "guns". It says "arms". Whelp --- those are all "arms".

Damn right. And that is why all arms busts are unconstitutional.

 

[Pogo]

Putting the commas to rest:

"The punctuation that emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was consistent in just two respects: it was prolific and often chaotic."
--- Alphabet to email: How written english evolved and where it's heading. Naomi S. Baron, Routledge, London and New York 2000. P. 185

"Excessive punctuation was common in the 18th century: at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase."
--- 15 ed. V.29, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1997. P. 1051

"In the 18-19c, people tended to punctuate heavily, especially in their use of commas."
--- The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford New York, Oxford University Press 1992. Tom McCarthur ed. P. 824

All from GunCite (emphasis added)

And I see nothing to disagree with in these assessments in other readings of the same period. So no I don't see how the commas, particularly the first one which has no grammatical function, can't be ignored.

 

[Wry Catcher]

we have more gun control laws, not less; and gun control laws are being considered, all the time.

we have safer cars now; not drivers with better morals.

Does your nanny know you are in the computer room again...you know your parents grounded you from the computer....

nothing but diversion instead of a better argument, junior?

You have been proven wrong over and over....constantly droning on about militia, and gun control laws that haven't done anything you say they have done just gets old....

gun control laws have every Thing to do with it; gun lovers are not more moral, with more guns.

legal gun owners are less likely to be criminals not more

Yeah, can you think of a corollary or two?

 

[Skull Pilot]

As the man said, there are liars, damn liars and statistics. Something to keep in mind when reading, if anyone does - the baffle them with bullshit - posts of 2aguy.

you are free to refute anything posted with evidence of your own

Thanks so much for giving me permission, it means so much to me. Oh, and BTW, what evidence do you have to support the oft posted opinion that the 2nd A. is absolute, and thus government cannot restrict/infringe on the right of anyone from owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun, i.e. arms?

The term shall not be infringed tells me a lot

 

[Skull Pilot]

Does your nanny know you are in the computer room again...you know your parents grounded you from the computer....

nothing but diversion instead of a better argument, junior?

You have been proven wrong over and over....constantly droning on about militia, and gun control laws that haven't done anything you say they have done just gets old....

gun control laws have every Thing to do with it; gun lovers are not more moral, with more guns.

legal gun owners are less likely to be criminals not more

Yeah, can you think of a corollary or two?

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2016 by John R. Lott :: SSRN

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

You're implying a fallacious conclusion here. Without knowing the details of what these cities and their laws might be, it could well be that "cities with the harshest gun laws" have those laws exactly because they already had "the most crime and murder". You can't take history as a snapshot as if you pass a law today and everything clears up tomorrow. Which came first?

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

On the contrary it certainly does. It's in the first thirteen words. I raised that issue the other day. FA_Q2 tried to shoot it down but it matters, because it leads to a next question, that being what it means. To which it looks like this thread has already proceeded.

So then if as you say they have harsh gun laws because they had high murder rates the we see that those harsh gun control laws did little or nothing to reduce murder rates

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Tanks?

Antiaircraft bazookas?

Submarines equipped with torpedoes?

Nukes?

The 2A doesn't say "guns". It says "arms". Whelp --- those are all "arms".

Yeah because we're all talking about owning nuclear weapons

Idiot

 

[there4eyeM]

If reason really reigned, no regulations would be necessary on anything. Extreme positions only make a situation more inflexible and, thus, dangerous.
Generally, there is no threat to arms ownership. The paranoia of the 'gunners' is merely generalized from the excuse to compulsive carry to worries they will be inhibited in their fetish.
The original idea, of a populace that could potentially resist authoritarian measures, was solid. The practicality today is laughable. There is nothing wrong with firearms in themselves, but nothing wonderful, either, except that many are fine examples of machining.