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

[tycho1572]

I've been thinking about buying a handgun and getting a permit to carry it.

GOod for you...make sure to get training...there are a lot of resources today for the civilian concealed carrier...if you can, use them............make sure you are responsible and safe...assholes like kiwi are waiting for you to screw up....

I was brought up around guns. I'd challenge anyone here to outshoot me! lol

 

[tycho1572]

I haven't owned a handgun because I know how to fight.

I also know there are times when that wouldn't matter.

 

[2aguy]

I've been thinking about buying a handgun and getting a permit to carry it.

GOod for you...make sure to get training...there are a lot of resources today for the civilian concealed carrier...if you can, use them............make sure you are responsible and safe...assholes like kiwi are waiting for you to screw up....

I was brought up around guns. I'd challenge anyone here to outshoot me! lol

It is less about shooting..more about carrying competently and responsibly...even cops screw up.......we had a cop from Chicago leave his gun in a local fast food restaurant bathroom.....lucky for him the local cops tracked him down and got his gun back to him without making a stink.....

 

[2aguy]

I don't own a handgun because I know how to fight.

I also know there are times when that wouldn't matter.

Knowing how to fight is not the same as dealing with real attackers......who attack when you are not ready...and can attack in larger numbers...and with guns and knives of their own......but you don't have to carry....but it is good to get the permit.......

 

[tycho1572]

I don't own a handgun because I know how to fight.

I also know there are times when that wouldn't matter.

Knowing how to fight is not the same as dealing with real attackers......who attack when you are not ready...and can attack in larger numbers...and with guns and knives of their own......but you don't have to carry....but it is good to get the permit.......

It's why I'm thinking about buying one.

 

[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".

Yeah because we're all talking about owning nuclear weapons

Idiot

Doesn't matter what we're "all talking about". What matters is what the Constitution says. Or doesn't.

Idiot.

 

[Pogo]

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....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

 

[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.

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

Very possible. This isn't my issue, I'm just pointing out there's more than one conclusion to your premise.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


See what a language expert says

 

[2aguy]

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....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

 

[danielpalos]

I don't own a handgun because I know how to fight.

I also know there are times when that wouldn't matter.

Knowing how to fight is not the same as dealing with real attackers......who attack when you are not ready...and can attack in larger numbers...and with guns and knives of their own......but you don't have to carry....but it is good to get the permit.......

some guys just need money to hire their own, "militia".

 

[danielpalos]

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....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

the law of large numbers. that is why i know, the right wing is merely full of fallacy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[danielpalos]

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....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


See what a language expert says

Simple fallacy of composition. The People are the Militia.

 

[Skull Pilot]

legal gun owners are less likely to be criminals not more

legal gun owners are subject to State gun control laws.

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

the law of large numbers. that is why i know, the right wing is merely full of fallacy.

You don't eve know what the law of large numbers is

 

[Skull Pilot]

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....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


See what a language expert says

Simple fallacy of composition. The People are the Militia.

And the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[danielpalos]

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....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not a free People. Natural rights are subordinate to State's rights and needs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

you have to understand the context. the second clause of our Second Amendment, is not a Constitution unto itself; but, merely the Second Article of Amendment.

The People are the Militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

The Bill of rights secures the right of the PEOPLE not the government

Therefore

The PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not a free People. Natural rights are subordinate to State's rights and needs.

And it's the right of THE PEOPLE to secure it

Therefore the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed