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

[FA_Q2]

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

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

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

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

Nor do you have the text quite right.

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

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Which means:

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

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

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

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

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

Didn''t say it does. I'm asking, "why is it there"? Yes it assumes a given and proceeds from there, but why would it need to do that?

That question is meaningless in the context of the thread itself as well as the current thread of the conversation which is exploring the right of the people to bear arms. If you wish to have a philosophical discussion on the reasoning behind the preparatory clause then that is open for discussion. Inserting it into a discussion about the right to bear arms and then stating that you never said that clause changes the protected right for the people is disingenuous at best.

If you have a point that pertains to the thread concerning the clause then state it. If you are just branching off into another concept here then state that. Otherwise, there does not seem to be a point in bringing up the preparatory clause.

A Constitution, whether a country, state, organization, whatever, is an absolute. It's the last word. It isn't making any kind of argument; it simply decrees. We didn't get an Amendment that says "The right of Mrs. Belfry to not have to wait for her lush husband to come home, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors is hereby prohibited" and we didn't get another one that said "Yanno what, after seeing how Al Capone and the gangs and the moonshiners reacted, faggetaboudit, the eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed". No justifications are necessary.

Constitutional language is not chosen carelessly. Yet this is the ONLY Amendment, and I'd bet the only place in the Constitution at all, where it actually steps out of character to make an argument to justify itself. I'm asking why they would have done that. For what purpose. "It doesn't change the Amendment" is not an answer to that question.

It does not change the protected right is an answer to the topic of the thread.

 

[FA_Q2]

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

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

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

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

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

 

[sakinago]

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

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

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

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

short attention span? it is about claiming more guns equals less crime, but omitting gun control laws as an effect. the analogy is similar to automobile statistics.

No it is still a false equivalency since there's a constitutional amendment for one telling the government not to infringe, and nothing for the other.

In every single instant, every single instant, a country has implemented some sort of gun ban, murder rates increase. You'd think that just maybe once there'd be some sort of exception to the rule, but there isn't. And it's because of the simple fact that gun control laws do not apply to criminals acting outside of the law. They only apply to law abiding citizens, constricting their ability to defend themselves. Guns in the hands of good people stop crime, whether that person is an officer or homemaker out buying groceries.

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks

FBI Crime Stats Show an Armed Public Is a Safer Public

GUN BANS LEAD TO INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[sakinago]

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

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

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

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

Nor do you have the text quite right.

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

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Which means:

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

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

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

Jefferson on Politics & Government: The Military

See 47.4 and 47.7 to help give insight on the intent of the 2nd


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[danielpalos]

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

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

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

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

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

 

[danielpalos]

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

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

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

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

short attention span? it is about claiming more guns equals less crime, but omitting gun control laws as an effect. the analogy is similar to automobile statistics.

Nope...since criminals do not obey gun control laws and 90% of murderers are already convicted felons who can't buy, own or carry guns.....gun control laws did not lower the gun murder rate...

More guns in the hands of more law abiding Americans...and our gun murder rate went down 47% from the 1990s to today....which shows that the primary belief of anti gunners...that more guns = more crime....is a lie....it just doesn't work that way.....so their entire argument is a fail....and based on nothing more than their emotions....and not based in truth, facts or the reality of gun ownership in the United States.

Our carry laws have relaxed since the 1990s, not increased...we had 4.7 million people carrying guns in 1997 and we now have 15 million people carrying guns in 2016....and our gun murder rate went down 47% and our gun accident rates also went down.....so you are wrong......

special pleading? gun stats include all statistics, like auto stats. back ground checks are required now.

 

[danielpalos]

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

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

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

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

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.

 

[danielpalos]

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

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

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

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

short attention span? it is about claiming more guns equals less crime, but omitting gun control laws as an effect. the analogy is similar to automobile statistics.

No it is still a false equivalency since there's a constitutional amendment for one telling the government not to infringe, and nothing for the other.

In every single instant, every single instant, a country has implemented some sort of gun ban, murder rates increase. You'd think that just maybe once there'd be some sort of exception to the rule, but there isn't. And it's because of the simple fact that gun control laws do not apply to criminals acting outside of the law. They only apply to law abiding citizens, constricting their ability to defend themselves. Guns in the hands of good people stop crime, whether that person is an officer or homemaker out buying groceries.

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks

FBI Crime Stats Show an Armed Public Is a Safer Public

GUN BANS LEAD TO INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

you don't understand the concept.

auto regulations increased the safety of autos in much the same way gun control laws increase the safety of guns and gun lovers.

 

[2aguy]

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[2aguy]

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

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

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

short attention span? it is about claiming more guns equals less crime, but omitting gun control laws as an effect. the analogy is similar to automobile statistics.

No it is still a false equivalency since there's a constitutional amendment for one telling the government not to infringe, and nothing for the other.

In every single instant, every single instant, a country has implemented some sort of gun ban, murder rates increase. You'd think that just maybe once there'd be some sort of exception to the rule, but there isn't. And it's because of the simple fact that gun control laws do not apply to criminals acting outside of the law. They only apply to law abiding citizens, constricting their ability to defend themselves. Guns in the hands of good people stop crime, whether that person is an officer or homemaker out buying groceries.

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks

FBI Crime Stats Show an Armed Public Is a Safer Public

GUN BANS LEAD TO INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

you don't understand the concept.

auto regulations increased the safety of autos in much the same way gun control laws increase the safety of guns and gun lovers.

No....not even the same thing.....not even close....you are wrong. Gun safety has not changed much over the period of time of the decrease in gun accidents and gun murder...you are making a false statement.

 

[sakinago]

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

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

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

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

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.

This is a ridiculous narrative manufactured by the left. They don't even take the time to do a quick fact check of their own statements.

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well organized militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. You fail to understand that statement. Again, the militia is not the same as the uniform army, a standing uniform army posses a threat to the free state.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: The Military

See 47.4 and 47.7

 

[sakinago]

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

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

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

short attention span? it is about claiming more guns equals less crime, but omitting gun control laws as an effect. the analogy is similar to automobile statistics.

No it is still a false equivalency since there's a constitutional amendment for one telling the government not to infringe, and nothing for the other.

In every single instant, every single instant, a country has implemented some sort of gun ban, murder rates increase. You'd think that just maybe once there'd be some sort of exception to the rule, but there isn't. And it's because of the simple fact that gun control laws do not apply to criminals acting outside of the law. They only apply to law abiding citizens, constricting their ability to defend themselves. Guns in the hands of good people stop crime, whether that person is an officer or homemaker out buying groceries.

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks

FBI Crime Stats Show an Armed Public Is a Safer Public

GUN BANS LEAD TO INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

you don't understand the concept.

auto regulations increased the safety of autos in much the same way gun control laws increase the safety of guns and gun lovers.

I do understand the concept, you do not understand the second amendment. And no gun control laws do nothing for safety of gun owners, only restrict and make their right to bear more difficult.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

so what?
I bet you've seen more mothers screaming when kids get killed in car wrecks, or by poisoning or by drug overdose etc ad infinitum
accidental gun deaths are one of the least common accidental deaths that occur

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Actually, law abiding citizens should be able to go about their lives without a relentless culture that continually glorifies guns and violence, that's what they should be able to do.

the mere act of a law abiding citizen possessing or carrying a gun is not a condoning of violence

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where do we glorify it? We abhor it. However, unlike you, we are capable of dealing with bad people on our own. We don't need someone to come "save us" after the crime has already occurred.

"Where"? Really, "where"???

Literally any day or night scanning literally any set of TV channels anywhere......... Movies.......... video games............ comic books ......... fiction ............. toys ........... scholastic history classes .......... sports metaphors and everyday language in or out of sports......... "Where" he says, as if he lives in a damn cave.

Normal adjusted people do not fetishize instruments made to fire projectiles to kill things. That's a mental illness.

Then tell the anti gunners on U.S. message to stop doing that......since every time we talk about guns they start talking about having sex with them....

"Fetish" doesn't necessarily mean something sexual, Sparkles.

See #s 1, 2 and 4 here:

fet·ish
(fĕt′ĭsh)
n.
1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Something, such as a material object or nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.
​

An irrational obsession or fixation.

Even this message board has an entire forum dedicated to it. See any similar forum on, say, knives? Swords? Poisons? Truncheons? Shillelaghs?

​

So.....people have a fetish for computers.....and wine, the X-box?

Some do, sure. And throw in smartphones. That's a big one.

The difference is, (a) those things are not an endlessly central character in your typical movie, TV show, comic book, video game, novel, etc etc etc, and (b) those things don't kill people.

Seems like your issue is with Hollywood not gun owners so take it up with them

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

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

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

2014.....486

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

due to gun control laws.

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

Can you give a few specific examples of "gun lovers" complaining about "posse duty"?

Why no posse duty registry, so gun lovers can love their guns in public, with no problem.

You are dodging the question.

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

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

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

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

really you have asked every gun owner about posse duty?

do you even know anyone who owns a gun?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

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

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

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

Nor do you have the text quite right.

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

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Which means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only the right wing, never gets it.

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

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

 

[Picaro]

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

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

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