Pass a test to use a protected right?

[mgh80]

You want to violate the law because of a minor problem? What next? Sorry but the Government won't be free to do anything they want because there are 300 million firearms in private hands. if only 3 percent resist that is a huge number of people armed and ready to fight to resist tyranny.

Here's a stat that may surprise you. 87,000 dead since Sandy Hook, 142 school shootings since Sandy Hook(Dec 2012), the government has all the power and if you think 300 million weapons is going to make a dent in their superior firepower you never served in the military.

Let's be fair for a moment here...you're failing to mention how many of those deaths were suicides.

According to Harvard (which we can both agree is a reliable resource) in 2010:

19,392 people who died from a gun were suicides
11,078 were killed by other people

Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Magazine Features

That means roughly 64% of gun deaths are self-inflicted. If we apply that statistic to your statistics is take that 87,000 down to 31,320.

I'm not trying to downplay 31,320 deaths, but what I'm suggesting is that if we want to have an honest conversation about the topic: we need to stay honest and not distort facts.


The following stats are issued from the FBI:

Table 5


Alaska:

61.7% of residents own guns (1st in the US)
4.63 per 100,000 people murder/negligent death rate (20th in the US)

Louisiana:

10.77 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (1st)
44.5% of residents own guns (11th in the US)

Iowa:

1.39 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (50th)
33.8% of residents own guns (22nd in the US)

Delaware:

5.2% of residents own guns (50th)
4.21 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (24th in the US)


Now I agree that we have a problem with gun deaths in this country, I genuinely believe it's a culturally issue and not a gun ownership rate issue.

I don't think this due to pathos...I think this due to logos.

Way too many people are looking at the issues with lots of emotions (on both sides), but let's look at the facts. The great about facts is that they do not lie.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission to own or carry.

I understand it perfectly well. I think it should be me who asks you what part of it don't YOU understand?

Keep arms is the right to own weapons.
Bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The clause they're talking about: " but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Why would preventing people from carrying arms around in their daily life give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution exactly?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Why, if it means to carry arms, did Mr Gerry talk about excluding "those from militia duty who have religious scruples" and not say "exclude those from carrying arms who have religious scruples"?
Also, why would people who have religious scruples need to be excluded from walking around carrying arms?

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Why would Mr Jackson feel that individuals who did not carry arms around would need to pay an equivalent instead of carrying arms around?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Why would Mr Jackson want the constitution to say "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, shall be compelled to render military services, in person, upon paying and equivalent"?


Surely when two people use the terms "render military service" and "militia duty" as synonyms for "bear arms", you kind of realise it doesn't mean "carry arms" but actually means a right to be in the militia.

 

[Dan Daly]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission to own or carry.

I understand it perfectly well. I think it should be me who asks you what part of it don't YOU understand?

Keep arms is the right to own weapons.
Bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The clause they're talking about: " but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Why would preventing people from carrying arms around in their daily life give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution exactly?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Why, if it means to carry arms, did Mr Gerry talk about excluding "those from militia duty who have religious scruples" and not say "exclude those from carrying arms who have religious scruples"?
Also, why would people who have religious scruples need to be excluded from walking around carrying arms?

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Why would Mr Jackson feel that individuals who did not carry arms around would need to pay an equivalent instead of carrying arms around?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Why would Mr Jackson want the constitution to say "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, shall be compelled to render military services, in person, upon paying and equivalent"?


Surely when two people use the terms "render military service" and "militia duty" as synonyms for "bear arms", you kind of realise it doesn't mean "carry arms" but actually means a right to be in the militia.

uh, no you don't, obviously.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in clear and simple language. If they had intended "bear" to mean "be in the militia" that is what they would have stated. If you were as versed in the Constitution and the debates leading to both ratification and the bill of rights as you try to pass off, you wouldn't utter this nonsense. Try dazzling me with brilliance rather than lamely trying to baffle me with bullshit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission to own or carry.

I understand it perfectly well. I think it should be me who asks you what part of it don't YOU understand?

Keep arms is the right to own weapons.
Bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The clause they're talking about: " but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Why would preventing people from carrying arms around in their daily life give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution exactly?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Why, if it means to carry arms, did Mr Gerry talk about excluding "those from militia duty who have religious scruples" and not say "exclude those from carrying arms who have religious scruples"?
Also, why would people who have religious scruples need to be excluded from walking around carrying arms?

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Why would Mr Jackson feel that individuals who did not carry arms around would need to pay an equivalent instead of carrying arms around?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Why would Mr Jackson want the constitution to say "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, shall be compelled to render military services, in person, upon paying and equivalent"?


Surely when two people use the terms "render military service" and "militia duty" as synonyms for "bear arms", you kind of realise it doesn't mean "carry arms" but actually means a right to be in the militia.

uh, no you don't, obviously.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in clear and simple language. If they had intended "bear" to mean "be in the militia" that is what they would have stated. If you were as versed in the Constitution and the debates leading to both ratification and the bill of rights as you try to pass off, you wouldn't utter this nonsense. Try dazzling me with brilliance rather than lamely trying to baffle me with bullshit.

Did you read what I wrote? At the time, 1790, the founding fathers were using the term "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty".

In fact the different versions of the constitution flipped between two different terms.

June 8th 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.


August 24th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 25th

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Bear arms and render militia service in person were synonymous.


Here's your argument, in a different way.

Stool, it means various things.

One meaning is: "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, because it CAN mean "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body" therefore your argument is that it DOES mean this.

So "John sad down on the wooden stool by the bar", clearly means that John sat on the wooden piece of solid waste from someone's body by the bar.

I think not.

So, just because "bear" CAN mean carry, you are making the weird assumption that it MUST mean this. Why?

 

[Dan Daly]

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission to own or carry.

I understand it perfectly well. I think it should be me who asks you what part of it don't YOU understand?

Keep arms is the right to own weapons.
Bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The clause they're talking about: " but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Why would preventing people from carrying arms around in their daily life give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution exactly?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Why, if it means to carry arms, did Mr Gerry talk about excluding "those from militia duty who have religious scruples" and not say "exclude those from carrying arms who have religious scruples"?
Also, why would people who have religious scruples need to be excluded from walking around carrying arms?

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Why would Mr Jackson feel that individuals who did not carry arms around would need to pay an equivalent instead of carrying arms around?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Why would Mr Jackson want the constitution to say "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, shall be compelled to render military services, in person, upon paying and equivalent"?


Surely when two people use the terms "render military service" and "militia duty" as synonyms for "bear arms", you kind of realise it doesn't mean "carry arms" but actually means a right to be in the militia.

uh, no you don't, obviously.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in clear and simple language. If they had intended "bear" to mean "be in the militia" that is what they would have stated. If you were as versed in the Constitution and the debates leading to both ratification and the bill of rights as you try to pass off, you wouldn't utter this nonsense. Try dazzling me with brilliance rather than lamely trying to baffle me with bullshit.

Did you read what I wrote? At the time, 1790, the founding fathers were using the term "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty".

In fact the different versions of the constitution flipped between two different terms.

June 8th 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.


August 24th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 25th

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Bear arms and render militia service in person were synonymous.


Here's your argument, in a different way.

Stool, it means various things.

One meaning is: "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, because it CAN mean "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body" therefore your argument is that it DOES mean this.

So "John sad down on the wooden stool by the bar", clearly means that John sat on the wooden piece of solid waste from someone's body by the bar.

I think not.

So, just because "bear" CAN mean carry, you are making the weird assumption that it MUST mean this. Why?

"bear" does mean carry and it always has...again the founders went to great lengths to be precise in the wording of the actual document. If you had any exposure to the entire body of the debate over the 2nd amendment and the rest of the articles and the Constitution itself, you would understand that you are cherry picking quotes to suit your agenda.

Or perhaps you know you are cherry picking? Unlike gun grabbers, who assume everyone is a potential criminal or terrorist until proven otherwise, I prefer to give your integrity the benefit of the doubt by default.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission.

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission to own or carry.

I understand it perfectly well. I think it should be me who asks you what part of it don't YOU understand?

Keep arms is the right to own weapons.
Bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The clause they're talking about: " but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Why would preventing people from carrying arms around in their daily life give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution exactly?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Why, if it means to carry arms, did Mr Gerry talk about excluding "those from militia duty who have religious scruples" and not say "exclude those from carrying arms who have religious scruples"?
Also, why would people who have religious scruples need to be excluded from walking around carrying arms?

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Why would Mr Jackson feel that individuals who did not carry arms around would need to pay an equivalent instead of carrying arms around?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Why would Mr Jackson want the constitution to say "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, shall be compelled to render military services, in person, upon paying and equivalent"?


Surely when two people use the terms "render military service" and "militia duty" as synonyms for "bear arms", you kind of realise it doesn't mean "carry arms" but actually means a right to be in the militia.

uh, no you don't, obviously.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in clear and simple language. If they had intended "bear" to mean "be in the militia" that is what they would have stated. If you were as versed in the Constitution and the debates leading to both ratification and the bill of rights as you try to pass off, you wouldn't utter this nonsense. Try dazzling me with brilliance rather than lamely trying to baffle me with bullshit.

Did you read what I wrote? At the time, 1790, the founding fathers were using the term "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty".

In fact the different versions of the constitution flipped between two different terms.

June 8th 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.


August 24th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 25th

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Bear arms and render militia service in person were synonymous.


Here's your argument, in a different way.

Stool, it means various things.

One meaning is: "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, because it CAN mean "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body" therefore your argument is that it DOES mean this.

So "John sad down on the wooden stool by the bar", clearly means that John sat on the wooden piece of solid waste from someone's body by the bar.

I think not.

So, just because "bear" CAN mean carry, you are making the weird assumption that it MUST mean this. Why?

"bear" does mean carry and it always has...again the founders went to great lengths to be precise in the wording of the actual document. If you had any exposure to the entire body of the debate over the 2nd amendment and the rest of the articles and the Constitution itself, you would understand that you are cherry picking quotes to suit your agenda.

Or perhaps you know you are cherry picking? Unlike gun grabbers, who assume everyone is a potential criminal or terrorist until proven otherwise, I prefer to give your integrity the benefit of the doubt by default.

You seem to be making the argument that Amendment II is an absolute right and as such is immutable. Do I have that right?

 

[nuhuh]

You want to violate the law because of a minor problem? What next? Sorry but the Government won't be free to do anything they want because there are 300 million firearms in private hands. if only 3 percent resist that is a huge number of people armed and ready to fight to resist tyranny.

Here's a stat that may surprise you. 87,000 dead since Sandy Hook, 142 school shootings since Sandy Hook(Dec 2012), the government has all the power and if you think 300 million weapons is going to make a dent in their superior firepower you never served in the military.

Let's be fair for a moment here...you're failing to mention how many of those deaths were suicides.

According to Harvard (which we can both agree is a reliable resource) in 2010:

19,392 people who died from a gun were suicides
11,078 were killed by other people

Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Magazine Features

That means roughly 64% of gun deaths are self-inflicted. If we apply that statistic to your statistics is take that 87,000 down to 31,320.

I'm not trying to downplay 31,320 deaths, but what I'm suggesting is that if we want to have an honest conversation about the topic: we need to stay honest and not distort facts.


The following stats are issued from the FBI:

Table 5


Alaska:

61.7% of residents own guns (1st in the US)
4.63 per 100,000 people murder/negligent death rate (20th in the US)

Louisiana:

10.77 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (1st)
44.5% of residents own guns (11th in the US)

Iowa:

1.39 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (50th)
33.8% of residents own guns (22nd in the US)

Delaware:

5.2% of residents own guns (50th)
4.21 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (24th in the US)


Now I agree that we have a problem with gun deaths in this country, I genuinely believe it's a culturally issue and not a gun ownership rate issue.

I don't think this due to pathos...I think this due to logos.

Way too many people are looking at the issues with lots of emotions (on both sides), but let's look at the facts. The great about facts is that they do not lie.

I don't care about separating suicide statistics as if they shouldn't be counted, they are an integral part of the violence. Boiled down to simple terms we have a human problem that is fixable, the real problem is that no one wants to.

 

[Muhammed]

Frankly and with all sincerity, I don't care. December marks the 16th anniversary of Columbine and it marks the fact we have done nothing....at all. Reasonable people could have had a national discussion, but we haven't, lawmakers could have had hearings but we didn't, the gun problem can be boiled down to the basic fact that it is now at the intersection of crazy and easy, all magnified by the media fear that without a gun you surely will be a victim.

The gun problem is a human problem, we could fix it but we don't want to. So if government gets all big and bad over this problem just remember we could have done something once and now others may do it for you. Next time don't wait or let others do your talking for you.

Reasonable people will tell you that you lock violent offenders up for life and 80% of the violence go's with them. So...why do you insist on letting those people out to continuously prey on the innocent?

First, I have never ever locked someone up, not once. I don't believe I have that power or authority. But that is something we could put on a list to talk about. It is a fair subject to bring up.

Then you're an idiot. A person who robs, rapes, or kills, is most likely going to do it again. Lock them up and throw away the key. Most of the problem disappears.

No, you fuckin' shoot them in the head.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"bear" does mean carry and it always has...again the founders went to great lengths to be precise in the wording of the actual document. If you had any exposure to the entire body of the debate over the 2nd amendment and the rest of the articles and the Constitution itself, you would understand that you are cherry picking quotes to suit your agenda.

Or perhaps you know you are cherry picking? Unlike gun grabbers, who assume everyone is a potential criminal or terrorist until proven otherwise, I prefer to give your integrity the benefit of the doubt by default.

Yes, "bear" does mean carry SOMETIMES. But you're ignoring the point I made. It doesn't ALWAYS mean carry.

So, I have to ask, you're trying to tell me stuff, what are you backing it up with? I mean, I've backed it up with what the Founding Fathers said in the debates in the House, and also the different versions of the 2A as it went through the process. You have what you think and nothing else.

I'm not cherry picking at all. I'm telling you what the evidence says the 2A means.

So, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE that backs you up. Come on.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

Where did you get your Sea Lawyer degree, Gunny?

To which civil rights case(s) are you referring? The topic of the OP you initiated was about FIREARMS!! I had a two part question. Will you answer the two questions or dissemble again?

So you are a MORON and admit it. Thanks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Literacy test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[auditor0007]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Well there wouldn't be any mass killings if everyone was armed as they should be. Every college student, teachers, and faculty should all be packing. In face, everyone should have two guns just in case.

 

[nuhuh]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Well there wouldn't be any mass killings if everyone was armed as they should be. Every college student, teachers, and faculty should all be packing. In face, everyone should have two guns just in case.

Great, by that logic we should give every country a nuclear weapon.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You want to violate the law because of a minor problem? What next? Sorry but the Government won't be free to do anything they want because there are 300 million firearms in private hands. if only 3 percent resist that is a huge number of people armed and ready to fight to resist tyranny.

Here's a stat that may surprise you. 87,000 dead since Sandy Hook, 142 school shootings since Sandy Hook(Dec 2012), the government has all the power and if you think 300 million weapons is going to make a dent in their superior firepower you never served in the military.

Let's be fair for a moment here...you're failing to mention how many of those deaths were suicides.

According to Harvard (which we can both agree is a reliable resource) in 2010:

19,392 people who died from a gun were suicides
11,078 were killed by other people

Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Magazine Features

That means roughly 64% of gun deaths are self-inflicted. If we apply that statistic to your statistics is take that 87,000 down to 31,320.

I'm not trying to downplay 31,320 deaths, but what I'm suggesting is that if we want to have an honest conversation about the topic: we need to stay honest and not distort facts.


The following stats are issued from the FBI:

Table 5


Alaska:

61.7% of residents own guns (1st in the US)
4.63 per 100,000 people murder/negligent death rate (20th in the US)

Louisiana:

10.77 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (1st)
44.5% of residents own guns (11th in the US)

Iowa:

1.39 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (50th)
33.8% of residents own guns (22nd in the US)

Delaware:

5.2% of residents own guns (50th)
4.21 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (24th in the US)


Now I agree that we have a problem with gun deaths in this country, I genuinely believe it's a culturally issue and not a gun ownership rate issue.

I don't think this due to pathos...I think this due to logos.

Way too many people are looking at the issues with lots of emotions (on both sides), but let's look at the facts. The great about facts is that they do not lie.

I don't care about separating suicide statistics as if they shouldn't be counted, they are an integral part of the violence. Boiled down to simple terms we have a human problem that is fixable, the real problem is that no one wants to.

That's your opinion, not a fact.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Gotta be 18+ for most rights. A license to drive, hunt, fish, marry, etc. If all that's ok why not for a weapon?

 

[mgh80]

You want to violate the law because of a minor problem? What next? Sorry but the Government won't be free to do anything they want because there are 300 million firearms in private hands. if only 3 percent resist that is a huge number of people armed and ready to fight to resist tyranny.

Here's a stat that may surprise you. 87,000 dead since Sandy Hook, 142 school shootings since Sandy Hook(Dec 2012), the government has all the power and if you think 300 million weapons is going to make a dent in their superior firepower you never served in the military.

Let's be fair for a moment here...you're failing to mention how many of those deaths were suicides.

According to Harvard (which we can both agree is a reliable resource) in 2010:

19,392 people who died from a gun were suicides
11,078 were killed by other people

Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Magazine Features

That means roughly 64% of gun deaths are self-inflicted. If we apply that statistic to your statistics is take that 87,000 down to 31,320.

I'm not trying to downplay 31,320 deaths, but what I'm suggesting is that if we want to have an honest conversation about the topic: we need to stay honest and not distort facts.


The following stats are issued from the FBI:

Table 5


Alaska:

61.7% of residents own guns (1st in the US)
4.63 per 100,000 people murder/negligent death rate (20th in the US)

Louisiana:

10.77 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (1st)
44.5% of residents own guns (11th in the US)

Iowa:

1.39 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (50th)
33.8% of residents own guns (22nd in the US)

Delaware:

5.2% of residents own guns (50th)
4.21 per 100,00 people murder/negligent death rate (24th in the US)


Now I agree that we have a problem with gun deaths in this country, I genuinely believe it's a culturally issue and not a gun ownership rate issue.

I don't think this due to pathos...I think this due to logos.

Way too many people are looking at the issues with lots of emotions (on both sides), but let's look at the facts. The great about facts is that they do not lie.

I don't care about separating suicide statistics as if they shouldn't be counted, they are an integral part of the violence. Boiled down to simple terms we have a human problem that is fixable, the real problem is that no one wants to.

You're using pathos in your argument, thus it's all based on emotion and no real concrete rationale. I'm using facts.

Here are a few questions that I'm honestly curious in getting your perspective on.

1) Do you really think that a suicidal person wouldn't use a different method of killing themselves?

2) How can you explain the lack of a correlation between gun ownership rate and the murder/negligent death rate among the states?

I understand that it shouldn't correlate to a perfect 1st-1st, 2nd-2nd, 3rd-3rd, etc. However when you have stats (that can NOT be disputed) like 24th and 50th, 50th and 22nd, 1st and 20th.

I purposely chose the states that were 1st or last in each category and cited its "correlation". The only one that's remotely close is Louisiana. The other 3 there's really no argument to be done in terms of correlation = causation.

The problem is that when you look at the facts, and apply the scientific method to them you cannot rule out the null hypothesis (it's also the case on an international scale if you compare the ownership rates to the murder rate).

My personal thought is that here in American our culture is very different than many other countries. If you take a look at how stressed out we tend to be (especially in major cities), it's quite remarkable. I'd suggest that that level of stress and pressure is a main factor in why somebody would perform a mass shooting/murder. Most mass shooting seem to appear (at least to my eye) in places of great stress (schools and work mainly), with just a few exceptions.

I'd love to have an honest debate on the issue without resorting to name calling, or pointing the finger. Also please address my post as a whole-and not just nitpick a few things here or there. Also, let's keep it fact based...we all have opinions and we all know what opinions are similar to. Facts however are just that--facts.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

Where did you get your Sea Lawyer degree, Gunny?

To which civil rights case(s) are you referring? The topic of the OP you initiated was about FIREARMS!! I had a two part question. Will you answer the two questions or dissemble again?

So you are a MORON and admit it. Thanks.

I gave you two chances to 'splain what you meant and extract yourself from the mire you placed yourself, but I finally got the response I expected would follow rather than an honest/correct one!

Your BS about SCOTUS already ruling that any form of requirement testing is unconstitutional is in gross error! You claimed that in your OP, but your mouth overloaded your ass! In your first post replying to me you claimed some unnamed SCOTUS case invalidated voter registration tests as if registering to vote had some magical relationship with obtaining a firearm. A STUPID RESPONSE!

If one applies for a UBC, a CC or a FFL for instance, those applications are evaluated/tested to ensure the applicant is eligible by meeting ALL the requirements of law. There is nothing unconstitutional in those requirements. Further, within Justice Scalia's decision in DC v. Heller (2008) he wrote the following excerpts:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
AND
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Those two passages declare that Amendment II can be proscribed by law and outlines numerous examples of that proscription! You are in gross error and your OP is a FAIL!

 

[gallantwarrior]

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission.

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission to own or carry.

I understand it perfectly well. I think it should be me who asks you what part of it don't YOU understand?

Keep arms is the right to own weapons.
Bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The clause they're talking about: " but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Why would preventing people from carrying arms around in their daily life give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution exactly?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Why, if it means to carry arms, did Mr Gerry talk about excluding "those from militia duty who have religious scruples" and not say "exclude those from carrying arms who have religious scruples"?
Also, why would people who have religious scruples need to be excluded from walking around carrying arms?

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Why would Mr Jackson feel that individuals who did not carry arms around would need to pay an equivalent instead of carrying arms around?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Why would Mr Jackson want the constitution to say "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, shall be compelled to render military services, in person, upon paying and equivalent"?


Surely when two people use the terms "render military service" and "militia duty" as synonyms for "bear arms", you kind of realise it doesn't mean "carry arms" but actually means a right to be in the militia.

uh, no you don't, obviously.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in clear and simple language. If they had intended "bear" to mean "be in the militia" that is what they would have stated. If you were as versed in the Constitution and the debates leading to both ratification and the bill of rights as you try to pass off, you wouldn't utter this nonsense. Try dazzling me with brilliance rather than lamely trying to baffle me with bullshit.

Did you read what I wrote? At the time, 1790, the founding fathers were using the term "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty".

In fact the different versions of the constitution flipped between two different terms.

June 8th 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.


August 24th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 25th

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Bear arms and render militia service in person were synonymous.


Here's your argument, in a different way.

Stool, it means various things.

One meaning is: "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, because it CAN mean "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body" therefore your argument is that it DOES mean this.

So "John sad down on the wooden stool by the bar", clearly means that John sat on the wooden piece of solid waste from someone's body by the bar.

I think not.

So, just because "bear" CAN mean carry, you are making the weird assumption that it MUST mean this. Why?

"bear" does mean carry and it always has...again the founders went to great lengths to be precise in the wording of the actual document. If you had any exposure to the entire body of the debate over the 2nd amendment and the rest of the articles and the Constitution itself, you would understand that you are cherry picking quotes to suit your agenda.

Or perhaps you know you are cherry picking? Unlike gun grabbers, who assume everyone is a potential criminal or terrorist until proven otherwise, I prefer to give your integrity the benefit of the doubt by default.

You seem to be making the argument that Amendment II is an absolute right and as such is immutable. Do I have that right?

What part of "inalienable" do you fail to understand?

 

[gallantwarrior]

"bear" does mean carry and it always has...again the founders went to great lengths to be precise in the wording of the actual document. If you had any exposure to the entire body of the debate over the 2nd amendment and the rest of the articles and the Constitution itself, you would understand that you are cherry picking quotes to suit your agenda.

Or perhaps you know you are cherry picking? Unlike gun grabbers, who assume everyone is a potential criminal or terrorist until proven otherwise, I prefer to give your integrity the benefit of the doubt by default.

Yes, "bear" does mean carry SOMETIMES. But you're ignoring the point I made. It doesn't ALWAYS mean carry.

So, I have to ask, you're trying to tell me stuff, what are you backing it up with? I mean, I've backed it up with what the Founding Fathers said in the debates in the House, and also the different versions of the 2A as it went through the process. You have what you think and nothing else.

I'm not cherry picking at all. I'm telling you what the evidence says the 2A means.

So, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE that backs you up. Come on.

Obviously, the English language is foreign to you? Oh, wait, you must have "graduated" from school recently enough to be illiterate. Gotcha!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission.

I understand it perfectly well. I think it should be me who asks you what part of it don't YOU understand?

Keep arms is the right to own weapons.
Bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The clause they're talking about: " but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Why would preventing people from carrying arms around in their daily life give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution exactly?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Why, if it means to carry arms, did Mr Gerry talk about excluding "those from militia duty who have religious scruples" and not say "exclude those from carrying arms who have religious scruples"?
Also, why would people who have religious scruples need to be excluded from walking around carrying arms?

"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Why would Mr Jackson feel that individuals who did not carry arms around would need to pay an equivalent instead of carrying arms around?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Why would Mr Jackson want the constitution to say "No one, religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, shall be compelled to render military services, in person, upon paying and equivalent"?


Surely when two people use the terms "render military service" and "militia duty" as synonyms for "bear arms", you kind of realise it doesn't mean "carry arms" but actually means a right to be in the militia.

uh, no you don't, obviously.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in clear and simple language. If they had intended "bear" to mean "be in the militia" that is what they would have stated. If you were as versed in the Constitution and the debates leading to both ratification and the bill of rights as you try to pass off, you wouldn't utter this nonsense. Try dazzling me with brilliance rather than lamely trying to baffle me with bullshit.

Did you read what I wrote? At the time, 1790, the founding fathers were using the term "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty".

In fact the different versions of the constitution flipped between two different terms.

June 8th 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.


August 24th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 25th

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Bear arms and render militia service in person were synonymous.


Here's your argument, in a different way.

Stool, it means various things.

One meaning is: "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, because it CAN mean "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body" therefore your argument is that it DOES mean this.

So "John sad down on the wooden stool by the bar", clearly means that John sat on the wooden piece of solid waste from someone's body by the bar.

I think not.

So, just because "bear" CAN mean carry, you are making the weird assumption that it MUST mean this. Why?

"bear" does mean carry and it always has...again the founders went to great lengths to be precise in the wording of the actual document. If you had any exposure to the entire body of the debate over the 2nd amendment and the rest of the articles and the Constitution itself, you would understand that you are cherry picking quotes to suit your agenda.

Or perhaps you know you are cherry picking? Unlike gun grabbers, who assume everyone is a potential criminal or terrorist until proven otherwise, I prefer to give your integrity the benefit of the doubt by default.

You seem to be making the argument that Amendment II is an absolute right and as such is immutable. Do I have that right?

What part of "inalienable" do you fail to understand?

Our Amendment II right is not immutable as I said! I fully understand the meaning of the word inalienable. But perhaps you are only well versed in NRA propaganda.

Perhaps a better question is how you might reconcile your implication that our Amendment II right is inalienable and immutable with the decision in DC v. Heller! What Justice Scalia wrote in that decision, in part, is, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

'Nuff said!