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

[BULLDOG]

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

There is absolutely no reason to restrict law abiding people from owning firearms. The bans on so called assault weapons and magazines of a certain capacity will do nothing to stop those that are not law abiding from obtaining and using them in their criminal endeavors

That is not paranoia that is fact borne from evidence.

And what exactly is "compulsive carry" anyway?

 

[2aguy]

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.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

 

[2aguy]

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.

There is a threat...as has been pointed out by the plans the clintons had to get rid of the Lawful Commerce in Arms act so that they could bring federal law suits against gun makers....why? To force them into legally binding agreements to avoid those lawsuits...I have posted the information from the Clinton library...

Here it is.....and how they planned on achieving gun control without threatening to lose democrat seats by voting on it....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.......

Do you jack off holding a gun? You are so obsessed with guns it must be a fetish, do you cuddle up with a gun on cold winter nights?

• Are you afraid to go to the grocery store unarmed?
• Do you challenge other drivers on the road, knowing you have a gun in case you encounter someone who accepts your challenge?
• Have you ever been evaluated by a psychologist?
• Did you torture or kill small animals as a child?
• Did you play with fire as an adolescent?
• Do you dream of being a hero (are you a Zimmerman wannabe?)
• Do you hope to one day kill someone?

 

[danielpalos]

demographics.

a "rat race" analogy applies. it is why we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

So more gun laws don't equal less crime

is there less crime in other States, overall? if so, then more gun laws equal less crime and more safety.

Murder rate in Some cities like Detroit or Oakland alone are higher than the murder rate of entire states

so is the population. capitalism is Only wonderful, when you have enough capital. only the right wing, never gets it.

Are you high?

population density has a lot to do with it; Cities need revenue to operate effectively. Capitalism is what we allege to subscribe to.

 

[danielpalos]

is there less crime in other States, overall? if so, then more gun laws equal less crime and more safety.

Murder rate in Some cities like Detroit or Oakland alone are higher than the murder rate of entire states

so is the population. capitalism is Only wonderful, when you have enough capital. only the right wing, never gets it.

Are you high?

nothing but fallacy, without being high?

Is English your first language? Your posts just don't make any sense. Either way your still making claims without actually backing them
up with data, should not be hard to do if your as right as you think you are.

is logic and reason, foreign to your vocabulary?

it is a self-evident truth, that all safety regulations must have a similar effect.

 

[danielpalos]

I think gun loving nut jobs should also be allowed to practice fellatio on their guns in public, just like they do in private.

And there you go........another anti gunner with a sexual fetish for guns......I think they complain about guns too much......we start discussing guns and the 2nd Amendment and you start thinking about sex.....this is a serious issue for you and you need to get it taken care of.....try to find a good psychiatrist who can help you untangle your sex drive from your fixation with guns.....if you don't...it could be dangerous...guns are tools for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting....sex is not what they are for...

Get help.

i ran it through, Google translate, it means: gun lovers are welcome to love their Republic in public, as much as they claim to love their guns.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Except the gun murder rate went down 47% as more Americans owned and actually carried guns......

gun control laws have every Thing to do with it; gun lovers are not more moral, with more guns. the analogy is car safety regulations. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

just right wing fantasy?

The People are the Militia. Stop lying, fantastical Persons on the right wing.

You Idiot. I already said the people are the militia therefor the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

you think it's the militia that has the right to keep and bear arms

cognitive dissonance much? The People are the Militia. Well regulated Militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.

So why do you want to restrict the people from having arms?

You're the one advocating that we make it harder for the people (the militia) to keep and bear arms so YOU are arguing for the weakening of the security of the free state

I am not claiming any such thing. I know, we need better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

so tell me what does well regulated mean to you
I already told yo what it meant to the framers

You are arguing to put the militia under government control that was not the intent of the framers in fact it was just the opposite

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is Article 1, Section 8. There is no civilian militia. Only posse, and they need a Sheriff's permission.

 

[danielpalos]

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

legal gun owners are subject to State gun control laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

just lousy reading comprehension?

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.

You are the one trying to insert words here, not me.

Yes, a well regulated militia is required for the security of a free state (and you still do not know what well regulated actually meant when it was penned) but the right was never secured for the well regulated militia - it was secured for the people.

The simple reason is, of course, that is how the 'well regulated' militia is called up - by calling the people and having them bring their own arms.

I am using only the words as they are presented in the amendment - you are trying to add more to refine the word people into the word that you want it to be rather than the word that is there. There is a method for doing that by the way - amend the constitution.

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.

And yet facts have been presented that disprove this statement - one that you keep making over and over again without any actual facts.

the only one, mincing our language, is You. The People are the Militia. The first clause of our Second Amendment applies.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

The People are the Militia; only the fantastical right wing, never gets it.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you

A concealed carry permit should be recognized in all states...just like a drivers license
There should be some standardized requirements across the states (training, safety, background checks) but there should be national recognition

I don't agree with you having a choice of open or concealed carry. That should be up to the states to decide. Just like you have to follow different driving rules between states

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

just lousy reading comprehension?

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.

You are the one trying to insert words here, not me.

Yes, a well regulated militia is required for the security of a free state (and you still do not know what well regulated actually meant when it was penned) but the right was never secured for the well regulated militia - it was secured for the people.

The simple reason is, of course, that is how the 'well regulated' militia is called up - by calling the people and having them bring their own arms.

I am using only the words as they are presented in the amendment - you are trying to add more to refine the word people into the word that you want it to be rather than the word that is there. There is a method for doing that by the way - amend the constitution.

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.

And yet facts have been presented that disprove this statement - one that you keep making over and over again without any actual facts.

the only one, mincing our language, is You. The People are the Militia. The first clause of our Second Amendment applies.

I like my "Well Regulated Militias"

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you

A concealed carry permit should be recognized in all states...just like a drivers license
There should be some standardized requirements across the states (training, background checks) but there should be national recognition

I don't agree with you having a choice of open or concealed carry. That should be up to the states to decide. Just like you have to follow different driving rules between states

Open carry was legal in all of the West. What happened?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

just lousy reading comprehension?

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.

You are the one trying to insert words here, not me.

Yes, a well regulated militia is required for the security of a free state (and you still do not know what well regulated actually meant when it was penned) but the right was never secured for the well regulated militia - it was secured for the people.

The simple reason is, of course, that is how the 'well regulated' militia is called up - by calling the people and having them bring their own arms.

I am using only the words as they are presented in the amendment - you are trying to add more to refine the word people into the word that you want it to be rather than the word that is there. There is a method for doing that by the way - amend the constitution.

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.

And yet facts have been presented that disprove this statement - one that you keep making over and over again without any actual facts.

the only one, mincing our language, is You. The People are the Militia. The first clause of our Second Amendment applies.

I like my "Well Regulated Militias"

unregulated, "regulators"?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

just lousy reading comprehension?

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.

You are the one trying to insert words here, not me.

Yes, a well regulated militia is required for the security of a free state (and you still do not know what well regulated actually meant when it was penned) but the right was never secured for the well regulated militia - it was secured for the people.

The simple reason is, of course, that is how the 'well regulated' militia is called up - by calling the people and having them bring their own arms.

I am using only the words as they are presented in the amendment - you are trying to add more to refine the word people into the word that you want it to be rather than the word that is there. There is a method for doing that by the way - amend the constitution.

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.

And yet facts have been presented that disprove this statement - one that you keep making over and over again without any actual facts.

the only one, mincing our language, is You. The People are the Militia. The first clause of our Second Amendment applies.

I like my "Well Regulated Militias"

unregulated, "regulators"?

I love my Militias well regulated. Trained, properly equipped, chain of command, registered

You know...the things needed for a fighting force

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you

A concealed carry permit should be recognized in all states...just like a drivers license
There should be some standardized requirements across the states (training, background checks) but there should be national recognition

I don't agree with you having a choice of open or concealed carry. That should be up to the states to decide. Just like you have to follow different driving rules between states

Open carry was legal in all of the West. What happened?

No it wasn't.

Many towns banned firearms

 

[danielpalos]

just lousy reading comprehension?

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.

You are the one trying to insert words here, not me.

Yes, a well regulated militia is required for the security of a free state (and you still do not know what well regulated actually meant when it was penned) but the right was never secured for the well regulated militia - it was secured for the people.

The simple reason is, of course, that is how the 'well regulated' militia is called up - by calling the people and having them bring their own arms.

I am using only the words as they are presented in the amendment - you are trying to add more to refine the word people into the word that you want it to be rather than the word that is there. There is a method for doing that by the way - amend the constitution.

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

And yet facts have been presented that disprove this statement - one that you keep making over and over again without any actual facts.

the only one, mincing our language, is You. The People are the Militia. The first clause of our Second Amendment applies.

I like my "Well Regulated Militias"

unregulated, "regulators"?

I love my Militias well regulated. Trained, properly equipped, chain of command, registered

You know...the things needed for a fighting force

There is no civilian militia; Only unregulated, "regulators" who need a Sheriff's permission to, "go public".