CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[progressive hunter]

you forgot to say which religion requires nudity,,,

Nearly every religion shares the genesis story.

Adam and Eve were the first humans, according to the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian religions, and all humans have descended from them. As stated in the Bible, Adam and Eve were created by God to take care of His creation

so you dont have a religion that requires nudity,,

 

[progressive hunter]

why did you edit my comment out of context??

The meaning wasn't altered. But it did leave off the last paragraph. But then, you were just rambling.

so you agree the 2nd is a individual right,, good to hear,,

 

[cnm]

Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!​

Suitcase nukes for all!

Oh, ok then.


RPGs for all!

 

[westwall]

US V Miller, which heard the 1934 National Firearms Act held that the sawed off shotgun in question could be regulated because it had "No foreseeable MILITARY PURPOSE". So it is pretty obvious that the 2nd is ALL ABOUT protecting MILITARY weapons. No matter what the progressive left would like to think.

Oh ... so close.

It relied on the "well regulated militia" lead in to the 2nd amendment to conclude the reason for the right to bear arms, was because the state militia, hence the people needed them. And since a sawed-off shotgun was not a likely military weapon, the militia, aka the people, did not have use for, or a right to them.

It also gave the 2nd as a state right, and not an individual right.

Boy are you 180 degrees off from what was actually said. The States ARE the government. It takes an incredibly stupid, or dishonest person, to declare an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT is actually a government Right.

So, which are you?

 

[progressive hunter]

US V Miller, which heard the 1934 National Firearms Act held that the sawed off shotgun in question could be regulated because it had "No foreseeable MILITARY PURPOSE". So it is pretty obvious that the 2nd is ALL ABOUT protecting MILITARY weapons. No matter what the progressive left would like to think.

Oh ... so close.

It relied on the "well regulated militia" lead in to the 2nd amendment to conclude the reason for the right to bear arms, was because the state militia, hence the people needed them. And since a sawed-off shotgun was not a likely military weapon, the militia, aka the people, did not have use for, or a right to them.

It also gave the 2nd as a state right, and not an individual right.

Boy are you 180 degrees off from what was actually said. The States ARE the government. It takes an incredibly stupid, or dishonest person, to declare an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT is actually a government Right.

So, which are you?

dont be so hard on him,, at this point hes just trying to be annoying since he knows hes wrong,,

sad really,,

 

[ding]

That when we violate the rights of others we are not worthy of rights that were given to us for no other reason than we are God's creatures. From a justice perspective this seems pretty damn just. And since the framers themselves believed this was just our laws reflect that justice.

You missed the whole slavery thing. If you allow people to take a mans life liberty from him without penalty. How can you take a right from one group of such people, but not from another.

I guess I did but I don't see how it affects what I am saying. Like I said... when the government starts trumping up charges to justify the unjust taking of rights, that is a different matter.

as opposed to your trumped up charges/excuses??

Totally opposed. Yes.

 

[ding]

The intent is for peaceable law abiding citizens to own and possess the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that would be semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, @Donald H

Today, it would mean arms comparable to what we issue our soldiers, meaning true assault rifles, capable of both semi-automatic and either fully-automatic or burst-fire operation—Exactly the weapons which our government, in its degenerate corruption, most refuses to allow us to possess.

You do realize that the ban on post 1986 full auto's was pushed through by Reagan, right?

 

[alang1216]

Guns are sold for self-defense. Otherwise why would you need to carry one if you're not going hunting or to a shooting range?

I will give you a minute to read your comment and edit it so it makes sense,,

I understood it. Why can't you?
A permit is not required to transport a firearm for hunting, or use at a gun range or for repair.

The only other purpose is as he said, self defense, where transport requires a permit.

I dontt see the word permit in his comment,,

I believe if you go back you'll see you said guns are not explicitly sold for killing people. Hence my "why would you need to carry one" comment.

maybe you should go back and read it,,, and then respond properly instead of spinning it,,

You mean where I said "Many guns are sold explicitly to affect other people, as in to stop them from living" and you said "wrong,,,". How would you spin it?

only criminals with criminal intent do that,

the majority of us dont want to ever kill anyone,,

Please, no one with a concealed carry firearm may leave the house wanting to kill anyone but they carry that weapon for only that one purpose.

 

[alang1216]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

 

[Donald H]

Please, no one with a concealed carry firearm may leave the house wanting to kill anyone but they carry that weapon for only that one purpose.

Very well stated!
And they will be looking for an excuse to use it too. Will any of them even try to claim they're looking to avoid violence.

This is the menatality that causes most of them to support Chauvin's open and brazen cold blooded murder.

Thanks for your contribution to this thread! This one is going a lot better than most gun discussions which break down into the usual screaming profanities back and forth.

 

[progressive hunter]

Guns are sold for self-defense. Otherwise why would you need to carry one if you're not going hunting or to a shooting range?

I will give you a minute to read your comment and edit it so it makes sense,,

I understood it. Why can't you?
A permit is not required to transport a firearm for hunting, or use at a gun range or for repair.

The only other purpose is as he said, self defense, where transport requires a permit.

I dontt see the word permit in his comment,,

I believe if you go back you'll see you said guns are not explicitly sold for killing people. Hence my "why would you need to carry one" comment.

maybe you should go back and read it,,, and then respond properly instead of spinning it,,

You mean where I said "Many guns are sold explicitly to affect other people, as in to stop them from living" and you said "wrong,,,". How would you spin it?

only criminals with criminal intent do that,

the majority of us dont want to ever kill anyone,,

Please, no one with a concealed carry firearm may leave the house wanting to kill anyone but they carry that weapon for only that one purpose.

yes,, defense,,

 

[progressive hunter]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme???

no one should have nukes,, including dems and repubes,,

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Do I have a Constitutional right not to get shot by your gun?

thats a stupid comment,,

Actually it's at the heart of being able to restrict a constitutional right.

As long as it doesn't infringe upon others, was how one person put it, as the reasonable standard.

The Only Thing the Justices Believe in Is "Just Us"

We have a right not to be disturbed. Public demonstrations infringe on our privacy. SCROTUS puts the privileges of their pet Preppy protesters over the rights of the common man, whom the snooty judicial clique despises.

 

[justinacolmena]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.

The Second Amendment was duly proposed and ratified as part of the Constitution.

Why is this even a question in the United States court system?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Second Amendment also says well regulated, which mean reasonable restrictions are allowed, which even Justice Scalia acknowledged in the decision of Heller v D.C. The ongoing issue is what is considered to be reasonable.

That's a lie. Well regulated at the time meant in good working order. Look it up and stop embarrassing yourself further.

You suffer from ignoring your own words. Well regulated meant in good working order, you said.

Now apply that to a "well regulated militia". A force that had to be kept in good working order, ie trained, armed and subjected to controlling rules and regulations.The Founding Fodder was too cheap to pay for the weapons, training, and salary of a standing army. They covered up their unpatriotic stinginess with the high-sounding idea of a right to buy and use firearms, thus providing the national defense with people experienced in their use who wouldn't have to be trained.

Follow the Money or You'll Be Led by the Nose. It Is Superstitious to Treat the Constitution Like an Inspired Bible and the Framers As Apostles.

The Founding Fodder were too cheap to pay for the arming, training, and stationing of a standing army. So they covered up their stinginess with the high-sounding idea of the right to bear arms. This enabled them to call up people who already had weapons and were experienced in using them in hunting.

 

[Donald H]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.

The Second Amendment was duly proposed and ratified as part of the Constitution.

Why is this even a question in the United States court system?

The purpose of the topic is to bring out the 2nd. amendment supporters to stand behind their claims of the 2nd. amendment being unconditional. It appears that's what you're doing!

This then causes them to declare that there are conditions and restrictions and that provides a step toward coming to some agreement.

It's working better than any other methods we're seen before on this board.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Second Amendment also says well regulated, which mean reasonable restrictions are allowed, which even Justice Scalia acknowledged in the decision of Heller v D.C. The ongoing issue is what is considered to be reasonable.

That is neither a correct interpretation of the 2A, nor a correct interpretation of the Heller decision.

It has been proven repeatedly that the use of "well-regulated" means functioning properly, but even if it meant what you claim, the militia is well regulated, not the people. The right is still reserved to the people. "Shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

The Heller court did not hold that the term "well-regulated" means "reasonable restrictions." Scalia stated in dicta (means not part of the holding and therefore not controlling) that nothing in majority 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."

The Court also added some dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns in support of the Court's reasoning regarding the individual right as it relates to service in a militia, stating: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The intent is for peaceable law abiding citizens to own and possess the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that would be semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, @Donald H

Today, it would mean arms comparable to what we issue our soldiers, meaning true assault rifles, capable of both semi-automatic and either fully-automatic or burst-fire operation—Exactly the weapons which our government, in its degenerate corruption, most refuses to allow us to possess.

The "Security of a Free State" Also Refers to Crime Control


"Assault rifle" is a biased term created by the Liberal Language Lords. In a country free of media tongue-control, it would be called a "counter-assault" rifle. It is definitely needed by store owners to wipe out mobs of looters.

 

[alang1216]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme???

no one should have nukes,, including dems and repubes,,

So where do you draw the line?

 

[progressive hunter]

all guns are military grade,, and what the 2nd was specifically for,,

So you believe the 2nd covers fully automatic weapons like m-2s, gatling guns, artillery, m-1 tanks, A-10s, and rail guns?

are you saying its intent wasnt to defend the country from all threats foreign or domestic???

be kinda hard to defend it if you werent properly armed,,,

I'd wager that even among 2nd amendment lovers, your position is considered extreme. Some of our enemies have nukes, should US citizens be allowed to possess nukes?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme???

no one should have nukes,, including dems and repubes,,

So where do you draw the line?

with any weapon that can be used against us personally,, equality and all that,,