So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[candycorn]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers. They wrote it...I'm just telling you what is in it:

"A well-regulated militia". At no other point do the framers mention a "subset" of the people as they do in the 2nd Amendment....thusly it was pretty important that they were talking about this subset when they mentioned the right to bear arms.

Sorry.

Now do us a favor an repeat yourself.

 

[candycorn]

Buy more guns and ammo...

What they say about fools and their money has never been more accurate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

You choose to be wrong

 

[candycorn]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

You choose to be wrong

If I'm wrong, the authors are wrong. You'd have to have higher intellectual capability than you possess to know what we're talking about (i.e. the ability to read and write English and comprehend what was read).

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

You choose to be wrong

If I'm wrong, the authors are wrong.

No...
-You- are wrong as nothing the authors/founders/framers wrote supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia"
Nothing.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

You choose to be wrong

 

[candycorn]

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

You choose to be wrong

If I'm wrong, the authors are wrong.

No...
-You- are wrong as nothing the authors/founders/framers wrote supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia"
Nothing.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

You choose to be wrong

All you have to do is have an adult read it to you Skippy. The words "well regulated militia" is in the amendment for a reason.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

You choose to be wrong

If I'm wrong, the authors are wrong.

No...
-You- are wrong as nothing the authors/founders/framers wrote supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia"
Nothing.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong

All you have to do is have an adult read it to you Skippy. The words "well regulated militia" is in the amendment for a reason.

Good to see you understand that nothing the authors/founders/framers wrote supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".
Good to see you understand that you choose to be wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers--why else mention Militia?

To the Founders, the people ARE the militia. They didn't see militias as the same thing you see them as. This has already been explained multiple times, and you persist in blindly squawking out the incorrect premise that "militia" means a group like the National Guard in the original wording of the Amendment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers. They wrote it...I'm just telling you what is in it:

"A well-regulated militia". At no other point do the framers mention a "subset" of the people as they do in the 2nd Amendment....thusly it was pretty important that they were talking about this subset when they mentioned the right to bear arms.

Sorry.

Now do us a favor an repeat yourself.

You don't have to have a seance (hard to take seriously someone who can't even fumble out their own words) to know what the Founders thought and intended. They left behind reams of writing explaining exactly the opposite of what you keep trying to tell us.

As for "repeating yourself", YOU are the only one here ignoring all evidence to the contrary and obstinately parroting your own opinion as though repetition equals fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Buy more guns and ammo...

What they say about fools and their money has never been more accurate.

You'd be the resident expert on fools.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

You choose to be wrong

If I'm wrong, the authors are wrong. You'd have to have higher intellectual capability than you possess to know what we're talking about (i.e. the ability to read and write English and comprehend what was read).

You mean the authors whose words have been related to you over and over, while you pretend nothing has been said? The authors whose words totally contradict everything you want to believe? THOSE authors?

 

[candycorn]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers--why else mention Militia?

To the Founders, the people ARE the militia. They didn't see militias as the same thing you see them as. This has already been explained multiple times, and you persist in blindly squawking out the incorrect premise that "militia" means a group like the National Guard in the original wording of the Amendment.

The term is "well regulated militia". As you just stated "the people are the militia". Are they "well-regulated"? No. There are no common uniforms, terminology, standardized tactics, weapons, on and on. Thus no constitutional protection exist. As was ever the case.

This has been explained to you time and again.

 

[candycorn]

Buy more guns and ammo...

What they say about fools and their money has never been more accurate.

You'd be the resident expert on fools.

It comes from dealing with you.

 

[candycorn]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers. They wrote it...I'm just telling you what is in it:

"A well-regulated militia". At no other point do the framers mention a "subset" of the people as they do in the 2nd Amendment....thusly it was pretty important that they were talking about this subset when they mentioned the right to bear arms.

Sorry.

Now do us a favor an repeat yourself.

You don't have to have a seance (hard to take seriously someone who can't even fumble out their own words) to know what the Founders thought and intended. They left behind reams of writing explaining exactly the opposite of what you keep trying to tell us.

As for "repeating yourself", YOU are the only one here ignoring all evidence to the contrary and obstinately parroting your own opinion as though repetition equals fact.

Yet, the quotes concerning "The militia is the people" don't exist anywhere...do they?

The only writing that matters is in the Constitution which says "well regulated militia."

 

[Rustic]

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.
You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers

This is a lie; nothing in the constitution says this.
You choose to be wrong..

Sorry, if you want to argue, you will have to have a seyance (sp?) and channel the framers. They wrote it...I'm just telling you what is in it:

"A well-regulated militia". At no other point do the framers mention a "subset" of the people as they do in the 2nd Amendment....thusly it was pretty important that they were talking about this subset when they mentioned the right to bear arms.

Sorry.

Now do us a favor an repeat yourself.

You don't have to have a seance (hard to take seriously someone who can't even fumble out their own words) to know what the Founders thought and intended. They left behind reams of writing explaining exactly the opposite of what you keep trying to tell us.

As for "repeating yourself", YOU are the only one here ignoring all evidence to the contrary and obstinately parroting your own opinion as though repetition equals fact.

Yet, the quotes concerning "The militia is the people" don't exist anywhere...do they?

The only writing that matters is in the Constitution which says "well regulated militia."

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[M14 Shooter]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers--why else mention Militia?

To the Founders, the people ARE the militia. They didn't see militias as the same thing you see them as. This has already been explained multiple times, and you persist in blindly squawking out the incorrect premise that "militia" means a group like the National Guard in the original wording of the Amendment.

The term is "well regulated militia". As you just stated "the people are the militia". Are they "well-regulated"? No. There are no common uniforms, terminology, standardized tactics, weapons, on and on. Thus no constitutional protection exist. As was ever the case.

Nothing the authors/founders/framers wrote supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

Nothing in the constitution supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

You choose to be wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only writing that matters is in the Constitution which says "well regulated militia."

The Constitution says "... the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The people.
You choose to be wrong, and have been proven so by your own standard.

 

[Rustic]

A well "regulated militia" means - Citizens buy more guns and ammo...

...and they have been doing that very well.

 

[Contumacious]

The framers wanted a "well regulated militia" meaning that they had uniforms, drilled, weapons (obviously), shared tactics, goals, etc... None of today's gun owners do anything close to that.

Does it make ownership illegal? No. But it does remove the constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

This is, of course, a lie.

"...the right of the people..."
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The right of the people.

You choose to be wrong.

The people in the militia according to the framers--why else mention Militia?

To the Founders, the people ARE the militia. They didn't see militias as the same thing you see them as. This has already been explained multiple times, and you persist in blindly squawking out the incorrect premise that "militia" means a group like the National Guard in the original wording of the Amendment.

The term is "well regulated militia". As you just stated "the people are the militia". Are they "well-regulated"? No. There are no common uniforms, terminology, standardized tactics, weapons, on and on. Thus no constitutional protection exist. As was ever the case.

Nothing the authors/founders/framers wrote supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

Nothing in the constitution supports your position that there is no constitutional "protection" to keep and bear arms outside of the "well regulated militia".

You choose to be wrong.

Mr Dingle Berry, Sir


The federal government ONLY has those powers specifically enumerated - no authority has been granted to regulate firearms


"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."



Alexander Hamilton