Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

The point is that the states need a bona fide reason to infringe on those rights. They cannot just decide that no one can have a gun, as has happened in many places outside the US.

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.

Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state. Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?

"Shouldn't that be assumed." I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....

Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.

So don't move the goal posts.

More nonsense. Simply manufacturing Any laws is the equivalent to moving some goal posts.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.

No, it is absolutely not. 99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms. (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)

 

[WinterBorn]

While I agree with you in principle, why not ask gun lovers to prove their sincerity by convincing their own elected representatives they are not going to simply disturb the domestic Tranquility and security of any State with their less infringed use of Arms.

Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state. Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?

"Shouldn't that be assumed." I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....

Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.

So don't move the goal posts.

More nonsense. Simply manufacturing Any laws is the equivalent to moving some goal posts.

Let's stick to this specific issue, shall we? You mentioned that it doesn't work if the goal posts are moved via any law.

What law violates the "innocent until proven guilty" idea?

 

[danielpalos]

You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.

No, it is absolutely not. 99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms. (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)

Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?

 

[danielpalos]

Why should I have to convince anyone that I am not a danger to the state. Shouldn't that be assumed unless I show otherwise?

"Shouldn't that be assumed." I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....

Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.

So don't move the goal posts.

More nonsense. Simply manufacturing Any laws is the equivalent to moving some goal posts.

Let's stick to this specific issue, shall we? You mentioned that it doesn't work if the goal posts are moved via any law.

What law violates the "innocent until proven guilty" idea?

Our Wars Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.

No, it is absolutely not. 99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms. (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)

Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?

The guns do not present a danger at all. It is the person that is dangerous.

Is there a small danger? Sure. Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right? Absolutely not.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Shouldn't that be assumed." I think that is the core of our justice system....innocent until proven guilty, you know, that little thing we have in this country....except when it is inconvenient for the leftwing statists.....

Except, it doesn't work if the goals posts are moved via any law.

So don't move the goal posts.

More nonsense. Simply manufacturing Any laws is the equivalent to moving some goal posts.

Let's stick to this specific issue, shall we? You mentioned that it doesn't work if the goal posts are moved via any law.

What law violates the "innocent until proven guilty" idea?

Our Wars Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror.

If someone is found to be under the influence of drugs, or reasonably suspect of such, they are taken into custody until a determination is made.

Crimes are punished, not prevented.

Terrorists are caught before their acts for breaking other laws.

Wars are not relevant to this conversation, since they operate under a different set of rules.

 

[danielpalos]

You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.

No, it is absolutely not. 99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms. (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)

Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?

The guns do not present a danger at all. It is the person that is dangerous.

Is there a small danger? Sure. Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right? Absolutely not.

Arms are always a danger.

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder. This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder. As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet. The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.--Source: Gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Unlike plants. Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right? Absolutely not.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.

No, it is absolutely not. 99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms. (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)

Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?

The guns do not present a danger at all. It is the person that is dangerous.

Is there a small danger? Sure. Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right? Absolutely not.

Arms are always a danger.

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder. This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder. As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet. The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.--Source: Gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Unlike plants. Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right? Absolutely not.

No, they are not. As I stated earlier, there are around 109,600 gun related murders, suicides, and accidental shootings annually. There are 75 million legal gun owners. That means that (again, assuming all the shootings involve a legally owned gun, which is obviously not true) 74,890,400 gun owners caused no one to be hurt or killed.

And a gun is not dangerous, in and of itself. It requires action by a person to do any harm at all.

 

[danielpalos]

You are barking up the wrong tree; it is a "health and safety" issue.

No, it is absolutely not. 99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms. (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)

Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?

The guns do not present a danger at all. It is the person that is dangerous.

Is there a small danger? Sure. Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right? Absolutely not.

Arms are always a danger.

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder. This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder. As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet. The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.--Source: Gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Unlike plants. Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right? Absolutely not.

No, they are not. As I stated earlier, there are around 109,600 gun related murders, suicides, and accidental shootings annually. There are 75 million legal gun owners. That means that (again, assuming all the shootings involve a legally owned gun, which is obviously not true) 74,890,400 gun owners caused no one to be hurt or killed.

And a gun is not dangerous, in and of itself. It requires action by a person to do any harm at all.

You are appealing to ignorance of the science of guns.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, it is absolutely not. 99.85% of the gun owners in this country have done no harm with their firearms. (more if you consider the number of illegal guns that are not included in these stats)

Are you claiming, Person on the Right, that Arms do not present any clear and present danger to any other Persons, like some plants?

The guns do not present a danger at all. It is the person that is dangerous.

Is there a small danger? Sure. Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right? Absolutely not.

Arms are always a danger.

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder. This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder. As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet. The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.--Source: Gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Unlike plants. Is it serious enough to revoke a constitutionally guaranteed right? Absolutely not.

No, they are not. As I stated earlier, there are around 109,600 gun related murders, suicides, and accidental shootings annually. There are 75 million legal gun owners. That means that (again, assuming all the shootings involve a legally owned gun, which is obviously not true) 74,890,400 gun owners caused no one to be hurt or killed.

And a gun is not dangerous, in and of itself. It requires action by a person to do any harm at all.

You are appealing to ignorance of the science of guns.

The science of guns?

Please tell me about the science of the gun and how it is a danger to anyone unless someone uses it or does something with it? If a gun, even a loaded gun, is placed on a table, is it inherently dangerous?

I have been a hunter and recreational shooter for almost 5 decades. My father was a recreational shooter for longer. My grandfather was a hunter, recreational shooter and worked in law enforcement for several years. None of us ever caused anyone the slightest harm with any of our guns. The guns themselves are not the danger. The lunatic or idiot holding them is the dangerous factor.

 

[danielpalos]

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.

This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.

As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.

The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.

 

[WinterBorn]

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.

This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.

As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.

The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.

Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.

The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions. A gun does not fire itself. The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired. But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.

To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.

 

[danielpalos]

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.

This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.

As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.

The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.

Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.

The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions. A gun does not fire itself. The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired. But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.

To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.

Thank you for making my point. Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).

 

[WinterBorn]

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.

This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.

As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.

The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.

Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.

The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions. A gun does not fire itself. The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired. But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.

To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.

Thank you for making my point. Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).

LMAO!! Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.

Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.

However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous. But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.

 

[danielpalos]

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.

This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.

As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.

The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.

Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.

The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions. A gun does not fire itself. The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired. But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.

To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.

Thank you for making my point. Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).

LMAO!! Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.

Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.

However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous. But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.

Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left. I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized for the Militia, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.

 

[WinterBorn]

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.

This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.

As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.

The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.

Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.

The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions. A gun does not fire itself. The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired. But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.

To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.

Thank you for making my point. Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).

LMAO!! Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.

Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.

However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous. But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.

Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left. I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.

Yes they did. That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia. This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Most guns use compressed gas confined by the barrel to propel the bullet up to high speed, though devices operating in other ways are sometimes called guns. In firearms the high-pressure gas is generated by combustion, usually of gunpowder.

This principle is similar to that of internal combustion engines, except that the bullet leaves the barrel, while the piston transfers its motion to other parts and returns down the cylinder.

As in an internal combustion engine, the combustion propagates by deflagration rather than by detonation, and the optimal gunpowder, like the optimal motor fuel, is resistant to detonation. This is because much of the energy generated in detonation is in the form of a shock wave, which can propagate from the gas to the solid structure and heat or damage the structure, rather than staying as heat to propel the piston or bullet.

The shock wave at such high temperature and pressure is much faster than that of any bullet, and would leave the gun as sound either through the barrel or the bullet itself rather than contributing to the bullet's velocity.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws of Nature.

Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.

The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions. A gun does not fire itself. The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired. But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.

To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.

Thank you for making my point. Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).

LMAO!! Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.

Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.

However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous. But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.

Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left. I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.

Yes they did. That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia. This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.

If, it is an Individual right, then it must have come from a State Constitution.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Why should anyone believe Individual rights are declared for what is necessary to the (collective) security of a free State, with the declared terms, militia and the people?

Here is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh there is no argument that a gun, when used as a tool, is a powerful device.

The argument is that it is not inherently dangerous without outside actions. A gun does not fire itself. The information about is reasonably accurate about what happens when a gun is fired. But it requires that someone (or something) use force to operate or fired the gun.

To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance or the laws of nature.

Thank you for making my point. Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).

LMAO!! Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.

Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.

However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous. But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.

Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left. I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.

Yes they did. That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia. This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.

If, it is an Individual right, then it must have come from a State Constitution.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Why should anyone believe Individual rights are declared for what is necessary to the (collective) security of a free State, with the declared terms, militia and the people?

Here is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Any rights only come from the states? What nonsense.

The US Constitution guarantees a number of rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for making my point. Gun regulation is both necessary and proper as that form of private property in Commerce (well regulated).

LMAO!! Your claims that a gun, with no outside force involved, is inherently dangerous makes a stronger point than anything else.

Yes, I agree with some of the regulations in place, such as those convicted of felonies or ruled insane should not have guns.

However, the attempt to claim that guns fall under the Commerce clause is ridiculous. But if you want to make the claim that I have proven your point, I guess it makes you feel better.

Not at all; I am on the federal and liberal left. I subscribe to the federal doctrine as described in the federalist papers and enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

Any Thing acquired and possessed as private property may be subject to a Commerce Clause; only the Part of Militia of the United States which is necessary and proper to the security of a free State is exempted due the keeping and bearing of Arms, as distinct from acquisition and possession of private property due to the subject of Arms being declared socialized, as part of the Most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention with our supreme law of the land.--they really did think of every Thing.

Yes they did. That is why they wrote the 2nd amendment and made it separate from the section on militia. This is part of why the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right, and specifically said it was unconnected with service in a militia.

If, it is an Individual right, then it must have come from a State Constitution.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Why should anyone believe Individual rights are declared for what is necessary to the (collective) security of a free State, with the declared terms, militia and the people?

Here is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Second Amendment:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Any rights only come from the states? What nonsense.

The US Constitution guarantees a number of rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Yes, rights in the federal districts come from the authority of our federal Constitution. It really is that simple for the several Citizens in the several and sovereign and free States.