NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut Convicted of Murder

[Impenitent]

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment. The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia. The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns. It is the portion of the People who can act as a army. Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.

No, the framers were clear in their intent, at least those who wrote about it in other papers. They wanted the population to have the means to defend the country against foreign armies or our own gov't. The idea that the population is armed makes the freedoms much more difficult to take away.

Yes, I was going to bring that up too. There are MANY accompanying documents, some of them the founders personal papers, which clearly denote the exact intent of the founders when it comes to the 2nd amendment, and that is that they wanted the citizenry to be armed and ready to go at a moment's notice. They also wanted the citizens to have protection against a tyrannical government.

The people on this thread are lying about the intent of the framers of the constitution. It is quite obvious by reading accompanying documents that the intent was for Americans to be armed.

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

VI. Conclusion
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a freestate, just as it says.

Your accompanying documents don't describe how the slave holding states were encouraged to sign the constitution. The militias in the slave states were slave patrols. The slave states wanted these to remain under state control, fearing that the Federal Congress would free the slaves (which is what Lincoln did, after the slave states seceded, and had no congressional votes.)

Slavery can only exist in a police state, and the police state was imbedded in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I heard he was framed by the American communist party.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment. The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia. The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns. It is the portion of the People who can act as a army. Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.

No, the framers were clear in their intent, at least those who wrote about it in other papers. They wanted the population to have the means to defend the country against foreign armies or our own gov't. The idea that the population is armed makes the freedoms much more difficult to take away.

Yes, I was going to bring that up too. There are MANY accompanying documents, some of them the founders personal papers, which clearly denote the exact intent of the founders when it comes to the 2nd amendment, and that is that they wanted the citizenry to be armed and ready to go at a moment's notice. They also wanted the citizens to have protection against a tyrannical government.

The people on this thread are lying about the intent of the framers of the constitution. It is quite obvious by reading accompanying documents that the intent was for Americans to be armed.

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

VI. Conclusion
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a freestate, just as it says.

Your accompanying documents don't describe how the slave holding states were encouraged to sign the constitution. The militias in the slave states were slave patrols. The slave states wanted these to remain under state control, fearing that the Federal Congress would free the slaves (which is what Lincoln did, after the slave states seceded, and had no congressional votes.)

Slavery can only exist in a police state, and the police state was imbedded in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution.

A police state cannot exist in a situation where citizens have the power to fight back effectively. Granted, the militias were used as slave patrols. That was, obviously, a perversion of their original intent. But the right of the citizens to be armed makes a police state virtually impossible to maintain without the acceptance of the people.

 

[turtledude]

[
suicides are not a criminal issue

I don't feel unsafe because the dude down the road ate a revolver after being told he has ALS or his entire family was wiped out in the world trade center bombing

It's not about you, dude. It's about the 32,000 gun deaths we have every year because we let people have guns who just plain shouldn't have them.

and morons like you are unable to come up with a sensible way of preventing that

Uh, yeah. We have a sensible way. Strict licensing and gun control. HOld gun sellers criminally liable.

your fascist wet dreams are unconstitutional . and it shows you are a low wattage dullard. Criminals are exempt from licensing. I wonder if you have the intellectual ammunition to understand why. I sort of doubt it. You have been proven dumber than a toad on this issue

 

[turtledude]

First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution. Secondly, it's a clown show. No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation. They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.

You claimed that "NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut Convicted of Murder" which means you are a fucking liar, since Dowlut was in fact NOT convicted. Given that you are indeed a fucking liar, then one cannot view you as reasonable - lying is not reasonable in discussion. Ergo, you have no authority to comment on what a "reasonable person" would or would not do.

Joe Squeal has spammed this slandergasm on at least three different boards-here, Debate Politics and PoliticalHotwire

I wonder if Joe Squeal Is a paid mother jones mother fucker. He's dumber than a lobotomized weasel

 

[ChrisL]

Not consistently. Heller was the first time. Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke. He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.

If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?

Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment. The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia. The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns. It is the portion of the People who can act as a army. Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.

No, the framers were clear in their intent, at least those who wrote about it in other papers. They wanted the population to have the means to defend the country against foreign armies or our own gov't. The idea that the population is armed makes the freedoms much more difficult to take away.

Yes, I was going to bring that up too. There are MANY accompanying documents, some of them the founders personal papers, which clearly denote the exact intent of the founders when it comes to the 2nd amendment, and that is that they wanted the citizenry to be armed and ready to go at a moment's notice. They also wanted the citizens to have protection against a tyrannical government.

The people on this thread are lying about the intent of the framers of the constitution. It is quite obvious by reading accompanying documents that the intent was for Americans to be armed.

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

VI. Conclusion
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a freestate, just as it says.

Your accompanying documents don't describe how the slave holding states were encouraged to sign the constitution. The militias in the slave states were slave patrols. The slave states wanted these to remain under state control, fearing that the Federal Congress would free the slaves (which is what Lincoln did, after the slave states seceded, and had no congressional votes.)

Slavery can only exist in a police state, and the police state was imbedded in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution.

I don't think that negates the original intent of the founders.

 

[turtledude]

[
I don't think that negates the original intent of the founders.

Impotent is clueless when it comes to this issue. he is a gun banning retard

 

[ChrisL]

[
I don't think that negates the original intent of the founders.

Impotent is clueless when it comes to this issue. he is a gun banning retard

I don't know why people would deny the real intent of the 2nd amendment and why they are so fearful, or why they think that guns would just disappear. Of course, they MUST know that banning guns would have disastrous consequences, and crime related to guns would be even worse. NONE of them would be kept track of, and there would be no licensing or other procedures to follow. It would move them to the underground market where such regulations are not required.

 

[turtledude]

[
I don't think that negates the original intent of the founders.

Impotent is clueless when it comes to this issue. he is a gun banning retard

I don't know why people would deny the real intent of the 2nd amendment and why they are so fearful, or why they think that guns would just disappear. Of course, they MUST know that banning guns would have disastrous consequences, and crime related to guns would be even worse. NONE of them would be kept track of, and there would be no licensing or other procedures to follow. It would move them to the underground market where such regulations are not required.

generally the people who most want to disarm honest citizens are the ones who engage in activities that most likely justify honest citizens shooting their sorry asses

 

[ChrisL]

 

[JoeB131]

The impeachment was on specific charges. No mention of a blowjob at all.

And I don't spend a lot of time crying over dead thugs or union thugs.

100,000 DGUs would mean 1 person in every 3,139. I know two personally, and am one myself. You probably know one as well. They just don't want to hear your lies, so they avoid the topic.

Yep, specific charges about a blow job. What did he lie about? A blow job. What was he trying to obstruct? That he had gotten a blow job. Impeached for a blow job. By assholes like Gingrich and LIvingston and Hyde who had mistresses on the side.

Yup, Working Folks wanting a fair wage are just the same as Nazis who kill Federal Agents.

Your figure is 100,000 DGU's A YEAR. I'm 52. Which means that the figure now drops to 1 in 60

 

[JoeB131]

If fire extinguishers burned down 43 homes for every home they saved, then they would be pretty useless.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I don't know why people would deny the real intent of the 2nd amendment and why they are so fearful, or why they think that guns would just disappear. Of course, they MUST know that banning guns would have disastrous consequences, and crime related to guns would be even worse. NONE of them would be kept track of, and there would be no licensing or other procedures to follow. It would move them to the underground market where such regulations are not required.

I couldn't care less what the Founding Slave Rapists thought or what their intents were.

And your logic is that banning guns would have disasterous results or cause worse crime ignores the fact that countries that have banned guns have LESS crime than we have.

 

[JoeB131]

[
your fascist wet dreams are unconstitutional . and it shows you are a low wattage dullard. Criminals are exempt from licensing. I wonder if you have the intellectual ammunition to understand why. I sort of doubt it. You have been proven dumber than a toad on this issue

Scalia takes a dirt nap.
Hillary appoints his replacement as Lawrence Tribe.
The Second Amendment becomes about Militias and Militias only.

The problem with guns is NOT "criminals". The problem with guns are suicides, kids who find daddy's revolver in the nightstand, and the couple that ends an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best with a gunshot.

 

[WinterBorn]

The impeachment was on specific charges. No mention of a blowjob at all.

And I don't spend a lot of time crying over dead thugs or union thugs.

100,000 DGUs would mean 1 person in every 3,139. I know two personally, and am one myself. You probably know one as well. They just don't want to hear your lies, so they avoid the topic.

Yep, specific charges about a blow job. What did he lie about? A blow job. What was he trying to obstruct? That he had gotten a blow job. Impeached for a blow job. By assholes like Gingrich and LIvingston and Hyde who had mistresses on the side.

Yup, Working Folks wanting a fair wage are just the same as Nazis who kill Federal Agents.

Your figure is 100,000 DGU's A YEAR. I'm 52. Which means that the figure now drops to 1 in 60

Once again, read the actual charges.

And people stop crimes and forget to brag to all their friends. Amazing.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

I don't know why people would deny the real intent of the 2nd amendment and why they are so fearful, or why they think that guns would just disappear. Of course, they MUST know that banning guns would have disastrous consequences, and crime related to guns would be even worse. NONE of them would be kept track of, and there would be no licensing or other procedures to follow. It would move them to the underground market where such regulations are not required.

I couldn't care less what the Founding Slave Rapists thought or what their intents were.

And your logic is that banning guns would have disasterous results or cause worse crime ignores the fact that countries that have banned guns have LESS crime than we have.

Those same countries have less violent crime that does not involve guns. Why do you think that is?

 

[JoeB131]

[

How about we hold the violent criminals liable and keep them in prison?

And I am fine with holding gun sellers criminally liable, as long as you do the same for any other type of commerce. You know, like holding Ford Motor Company liable for how their products are used? If the gun seller breaks the law, burn him. If he doesn't, then he is not liable. The person responsible is the person committing the crime.

Ford isn't knowingly marketing their product to drunk drivers and then finding ways to water down background checks.

But if you really want to make a comparison to cars.

To own a car, I have to

1) Get a license.
2) Only operate it on designated roads that are patrolled by police.
3) Carry insurance at all times.
4) Get it checked once ever two years to make sure it isn't creating excessive exhaust

 

[JoeB131]

The impeachment was on specific charges. No mention of a blowjob at all.

And I don't spend a lot of time crying over dead thugs or union thugs.

100,000 DGUs would mean 1 person in every 3,139. I know two personally, and am one myself. You probably know one as well. They just don't want to hear your lies, so they avoid the topic.

Yep, specific charges about a blow job. What did he lie about? A blow job. What was he trying to obstruct? That he had gotten a blow job. Impeached for a blow job. By assholes like Gingrich and LIvingston and Hyde who had mistresses on the side.

Yup, Working Folks wanting a fair wage are just the same as Nazis who kill Federal Agents.

Your figure is 100,000 DGU's A YEAR. I'm 52. Which means that the figure now drops to 1 in 60

Once again, read the actual charges.

And people stop crimes and forget to brag to all their friends. Amazing.

Nope. Sorry.

Let's try again.

100,000 DGU's a year. I've never known one.

32,000 Gun DEATHS a year. I've known three.

Sorry, if this happened as often as you claim, I'd know at least nine.

 

[WinterBorn]

[
your fascist wet dreams are unconstitutional . and it shows you are a low wattage dullard. Criminals are exempt from licensing. I wonder if you have the intellectual ammunition to understand why. I sort of doubt it. You have been proven dumber than a toad on this issue

Scalia takes a dirt nap.
Hillary appoints his replacement as Lawrence Tribe.
The Second Amendment becomes about Militias and Militias only.

The problem with guns is NOT "criminals". The problem with guns are suicides, kids who find daddy's revolver in the nightstand, and the couple that ends an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best with a gunshot.

Not with the criminals? lol Now you have moved into truly twisted fantasyland.

As I have said, suicides who want to die will kill themselves. I have no problem with laws requiring proper storage of firearms. Any couple who does that is, hopefully, doing so before they breed. We can call it chlorine in the gene pool.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I don't know why people would deny the real intent of the 2nd amendment and why they are so fearful, or why they think that guns would just disappear. Of course, they MUST know that banning guns would have disastrous consequences, and crime related to guns would be even worse. NONE of them would be kept track of, and there would be no licensing or other procedures to follow. It would move them to the underground market where such regulations are not required.

I couldn't care less what the Founding Slave Rapists thought or what their intents were.

And your logic is that banning guns would have disasterous results or cause worse crime ignores the fact that countries that have banned guns have LESS crime than we have.

Those same countries have less violent crime that does not involve guns. Why do you think that is?

Whole lot of reasons. The primary one being that they are social democracies that don't let people starve or children die of treatable diseases, because they don't have fucking retards who say shit like "Well, the Founding Slave Rapists didn't put that in the constitution."