Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun

[hadit]

That seems to be a personal problem, not my concern...
Lol

Neither are 30,000 gun deaths a year here...

Most of those are from gangbangers on each other... There are bigger fish to fry. Gun control makes no sense it only hurts the law-abiding people

Law-abiding people describes more than 2/3rds of who die each year with a gun in their hands. That fish is plenty big enough.

your solution is like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm looks like you're doing something, but even even a fourth-grader can tell that you're doing nothing for anybody

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

No nail guns, few nail gun accidents, murders, or suicides by nail gun...

We choose freedom over lives all the time. We lose tens of thousands of lives every year on the highways, yet we don't slow the cars down. We prefer driving fast to saving lives. Would you be consistent and call for devices being placed on cars that prevent them from exceeding 35mph?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You may want to live life scared, but I'll take my chances with the Second Amendment. Now go hide

seems to me your dependence on the second amendment is smoking gun proof ( pun intended ) that you're scared shitless.

All sorts of crazy things "seem" to you. I know that statistically if I have a gun the house and it injures someone then it's roughly 80% also someone who lives in that house. Which "seems" to me to be a great reason not to have one. But of your irrational fear means you'd take that risk then go for it.

Irrational fear?

The Mount Carmel Holocaust 1993

bitch please! the branch Davidians brought that on themselves
it does showcase the point that armed citizens do stupid things

Horseshit. How did they do that, by minding their own business? What did the women and children do to deserve being incinerated?

Anyone who defends the Waco holocaust is a scumbag.

Making illegal gun modifications and killing Federal Agents is not minding your own business.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and commie foreigners should just butt out of discussions about the American Constitution. You don't even know what a Constitution is.

A fan of political satire might point you US foreign policy over the last century and find a rich vein of irony in your opinion.

What does U.S. foreign policy have to do with your understanding of the Constitution?

deflection

Manchester is the one deflecting. I asked him to clarify.

 

[g5000]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Robin Hood makes no sense at all

It did from the poor. Who better to steal from than the rich?

The moral code of a thief.

 

[bripat9643]

seems to me your dependence on the second amendment is smoking gun proof ( pun intended ) that you're scared shitless.

All sorts of crazy things "seem" to you. I know that statistically if I have a gun the house and it injures someone then it's roughly 80% also someone who lives in that house. Which "seems" to me to be a great reason not to have one. But of your irrational fear means you'd take that risk then go for it.

Irrational fear?

The Mount Carmel Holocaust 1993

bitch please! the branch Davidians brought that on themselves
it does showcase the point that armed citizens do stupid things

Horseshit. How did they do that, by minding their own business? What did the women and children do to deserve being incinerated?

Anyone who defends the Waco holocaust is a scumbag.

Making illegal gun modifications and killing Federal Agents is not minding your own business.

Those federal agents were trying to kill them, so it was perfectly legal. No one was convicted of making illegal gun modifications. In fact, the FBI destroyed all the evidence because they didn't want the public to know that the warrant was entirely unjustified.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

 

[Rustic]

That seems to be a personal problem, not my concern...
Lol

Neither are 30,000 gun deaths a year here...

Most of those are from gangbangers on each other... There are bigger fish to fry. Gun control makes no sense it only hurts the law-abiding people

Law-abiding people describes more than 2/3rds of who die each year with a gun in their hands. That fish is plenty big enough.

your solution is like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm looks like you're doing something, but even even a fourth-grader can tell that you're doing nothing for anybody

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

No nail guns, few nail gun accidents, murders, or suicides by nail gun...

How do you explain in rural areas where guns out number people many, many times - such as western South Dakota murderers by firearms are next to nonexistent...
In fact in this area more people die(mostly drunk Indians) by drowning.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Those federal agents were trying to kill them, so it was perfectly legal.

Utter nonsense.

 

[daws101]

your point?
I just said in that post the 2nd amendment never explicitly mentions that individuals have the right bear (own) personal arms but neither does it explicitly state they cannot .....do you understand what the word ambiguous means ?

"The people" means every individual, so you're just plain wrong. It's not the slightest big ambiguous.

Please try to keep up.

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up? I've lapped you many many times before you could even get started

"The people" is the part that determines who it applies to. It does not say "the right of the militia" shall not be infringed.

false .. it was a restatement of the obvious

Yes, it's obvious that the 2nd Amendment is intended to protect the right of individuals to own guns.

nope! the people already owned guns it was to establish a militia and an armory " to store weapons in case the government or Indians attacked .

 

[bripat9643]

What is that babble supposed to mean?

Guns in private hands are indeed a very effective constraint on government. You don't ever see people lined up for mass slaughter in countries where gun ownership is allowed. You don't see oppressive tyrannies.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

That isn't the question under discussion.

yes it is . the whole theme of this thread is gun control , you're just to chicken shit or ignorant to admit it.

The subthread started by Manchester was whether "the argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism." He brought the issue up, and then he tried to change the subject.

false and a dodge.

Anyone following the thread can see that it's true. You included the evidence in your post.

Bottom line: you're a lying douche bag.

 

[daws101]

Then why didn't it give the right to keep and bear arms to the militia, instead of the people?

a militia is kinda of useless with out people , don't ya think?

Now that's hilarious.

Women couldn't belong to a militia.

Boys under 16 couldn't belong to a militia

Men over 45, in some areas 57, couldn't belong to a militia.

Should they have been denied the right to own arms?

the Second gave the right to the PEOPLE, not just the militia

Commonsense is a bitch to the progressive

Common sense, defined as "sound judgment derived from experience rather than study," is one of the most revered qualities in America. It evokes images of early and simpler times in which industrious men and women built our country into what it is today. People with common sense are seen as reasonable, down to earth, reliable, and practical.

But here's the catch. Common sense is neither common nor sense. There's not a whole of sound judgment going on these days (though whether it is worse than in the past, I can't be sure), so it's not common. If common sense was common, then most people wouldn't make the kinds of decisions they do every day. People wouldn't buy stuff they can't afford. They wouldn't smoke cigarettes or eat junk food. They wouldn't gamble. And if you want to get really specific and timely, politicians wouldn't be tweeting pictures of their private parts to strangers. In other words, people wouldn't do the multitude of things that are clearly not good for them.
Common Sense Is Neither Common nor Sense

Thus, the federal government is all those things that make no sense, what do you call that??
Robin Hood makes no sense at all

non sequitur 2

 

[bripat9643]

Those federal agents were trying to kill them, so it was perfectly legal.

Utter nonsense.

It's entirely true.

 

[daws101]

No, but they can fire themselves, and do. And bees are still far safer.

That seems to be a personal problem, not my concern...
Lol

Neither are 30,000 gun deaths a year here...

Most of those are from gangbangers on each other... There are bigger fish to fry. Gun control makes no sense it only hurts the law-abiding people

Law-abiding people describes more than 2/3rds of who die each year with a gun in their hands. That fish is plenty big enough.

Those "2/3rds" committed suicide. They weren't murdered or killed accidentally.

link?

 

[g5000]

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

The same is true of swimming pools and drowning deaths.

Also, Muslims.

Yep, and we regulate those as well...

You said, "go away". Not regulate. You tipped your hand.

 

[bripat9643]

"The people" means every individual, so you're just plain wrong. It's not the slightest big ambiguous.

Please try to keep up.

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up? I've lapped you many many times before you could even get started

"The people" is the part that determines who it applies to. It does not say "the right of the militia" shall not be infringed.

false .. it was a restatement of the obvious

Yes, it's obvious that the 2nd Amendment is intended to protect the right of individuals to own guns.

nope! the people already owned guns it was to establish a militia and an armory " to store weapons in case the government or Indians attacked .

How does the fact that people already owned guns change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

You're arguments get more idiotic by the post. The meaning of "the right of the people" is perfectly crystal clear. It doesn't mean the government or the militia.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Neither are 30,000 gun deaths a year here...

Most of those are from gangbangers on each other... There are bigger fish to fry. Gun control makes no sense it only hurts the law-abiding people

Law-abiding people describes more than 2/3rds of who die each year with a gun in their hands. That fish is plenty big enough.

your solution is like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm looks like you're doing something, but even even a fourth-grader can tell that you're doing nothing for anybody

When guns go away, gun deaths also go down. Common sense.

No nail guns, few nail gun accidents, murders, or suicides by nail gun...

How do you explain in rural areas where guns out number people many, many times - such as western South Dakota murderers by firearms are next to nonexistent...
In fact in this area more people die(mostly drunk Indians) by drowning.

Low crime, but plenty of suicides. It's low crime where I am as well, and we also have lots of guns around.

TOP 15 CAUSES OF DEATH SOUTH DAKOTA

High crime areas also have lots of guns around. And so ends that derailed train of thought.

 

[rightwinger]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.

The 2nd amendment says in modern language, that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction. Other passages and amendments in the Constitution make exceptions ("except by due process of law" or "reasonable searches and seizures" etc.), but the Framers were careful to make sure the 2nd did not. It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.

But here we have a college professor in a position to influence young minds, announcing that violent people shouldn't own gun, because of the chance that they might be violent.

Yes, it's true that someone who has been violent in the past might do it again. But it's far more often true that someone who has been violent, does it only once in a situation of extreme emotional stress, and never does it again. But there are (unconstitutional) laws in the country, saying that a person who was recklessly violent once, loses his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.

If the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights wanted it that way, why did they write a flat ban on such laws, into the 2nd amendment?

Could it be that they thought that government having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms, would do the nation far more harm in the long run, than letting government impose such restrictions on "some groups" of people?

Did they look over the long history of governments throughout the ages, and find that governments who had "a little" influence on the question of who can keep and bear arms, eventually started abusing that power, imposing restrictions on more and more of their populaces, and eventually leave them helpless to resist the rest of their rights being taken away?

The answer lies in what they wrote for our government. They felt it was more important for govt to be completely banned from restricting people's right to own and carry weapons, than for govt to have even the power to take that right away from "some groups" of people.

The Framers didn't leave us long treatises explaining what studies they did (although they did study many past government extensively) and why they came to the conclusions they did.

But they did leave us the conclusion. And that was to flatly ban govt from having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms.

If that college professor wants to keep professing the facts, maybe HE should study up, even half as much as the Framers did, and find the facts. Before he starts telling trusting young souls what they are.

-----------------------------------------------

This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years

This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years

Business Insider
By Erin Fuchs
Feb. 29, 2016
20 hours ago

The case that spurred Thomas' torrent of questions centered on whether a "reckless" domestic-assault conviction counts as a federal "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that would carry with it a lifetime firearm ban. Thirty-four states have "reckless" assault laws that hold people accountable for carelessness that injures somebody else even when they don't necessarily intend harm, according to SCOTUSBlog.

Thomas' line of questioning seemed to suggest that he didn't favor gun bans for misdemeanor domestic-violence offenders and thought such bans could be a slippery slope leading to the denial of other constitutional rights for people convicted of misdemeanors.

"Can you give me a — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor question suspends a constitutional right?" Thomas asked Eisenstein, according to the court transcript.

The usually silent justice may have spoken up because neither side had addressed this question in the briefs they filed, according to Winkler.

"Thomas's question was an important one. Why is the right to bear arms is the only right that people lose for a misdemeanor?" Winkler asked in his email, before going ahead and answering the question himself.

"The answer is recidivism. Even though some domestic violence is only a misdemeanor, it shows a propensity to engage in violence," Winkler added. "Violent people shouldn't have access to guns."

It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.

A well regulated militia being necessary......

 

[daws101]

You may want to live life scared, but I'll take my chances with the Second Amendment. Now go hide

seems to me your dependence on the second amendment is smoking gun proof ( pun intended ) that you're scared shitless.

All sorts of crazy things "seem" to you. I know that statistically if I have a gun the house and it injures someone then it's roughly 80% also someone who lives in that house. Which "seems" to me to be a great reason not to have one. But of your irrational fear means you'd take that risk then go for it.

Irrational fear?

The Mount Carmel Holocaust 1993

bitch please! the branch Davidians brought that on themselves
it does showcase the point that armed citizens do stupid things

Horseshit. How did they do that, by minding their own business? What did the women and children do to deserve being incinerated?

Anyone who defends the Waco holocaust is a scumbag.

they were not minding their own business.. At Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, agents of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) launch a raid against the Branch Davidian compound as part of an investigation into illegal possession of firearms and explosives by the Christian cult.
epic fail

 

[Rustic]

a militia is kinda of useless with out people , don't ya think?

Now that's hilarious.

Women couldn't belong to a militia.

Boys under 16 couldn't belong to a militia

Men over 45, in some areas 57, couldn't belong to a militia.

Should they have been denied the right to own arms?

the Second gave the right to the PEOPLE, not just the militia

Commonsense is a bitch to the progressive

Common sense, defined as "sound judgment derived from experience rather than study," is one of the most revered qualities in America. It evokes images of early and simpler times in which industrious men and women built our country into what it is today. People with common sense are seen as reasonable, down to earth, reliable, and practical.

But here's the catch. Common sense is neither common nor sense. There's not a whole of sound judgment going on these days (though whether it is worse than in the past, I can't be sure), so it's not common. If common sense was common, then most people wouldn't make the kinds of decisions they do every day. People wouldn't buy stuff they can't afford. They wouldn't smoke cigarettes or eat junk food. They wouldn't gamble. And if you want to get really specific and timely, politicians wouldn't be tweeting pictures of their private parts to strangers. In other words, people wouldn't do the multitude of things that are clearly not good for them.
Common Sense Is Neither Common nor Sense

Thus, the federal government is all those things that make no sense, what do you call that??
Robin Hood makes no sense at all

non sequitur 2

No, The thinking the more government is to answer everything...
Lol