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

[RDD_1210]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

With several separate clauses.

Or as we refer to them in english, commas.

Here's some help for you.

Take a week, (2 if necessary), and rejoin the conversation

Let me ask you...in 2 weeks from now will the 2nd amendment be longer than a single sentence?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Shocking...

 

[Auld Phart]

Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."

Save your breath. Learning and education is like kryptonite to the conservative base on this site.

Learn to read.

The right to keep and bear arms was given to the people, NOT the militia.

 

[Auld Phart]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

With several separate clauses.

Or as we refer to them in english, commas.

Here's some help for you.

Take a week, (2 if necessary), and rejoin the conversation

Let me ask you...in 2 weeks from now will the 2nd amendment be longer than a single sentence?

Nope.

Do you think that, in 2 weeks or so, you'll be able to read, and comprehend, the entire sentence?

 

[RDD_1210]

Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."

Save your breath. Learning and education is like kryptonite to the conservative base on this site.

Learn to read.

The to keep and bear arms was given to the people, NOT the militia.

Who makes up the militia exactly? Cows? Robots? Tulips?

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.

 

[daws101]

Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."

Now, do the same with the Second.

not necessary. the key words are separate and elements of one thought not different ones.

 

[RDD_1210]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

With several separate clauses.

Or as we refer to them in english, commas.

Here's some help for you.

Take a week, (2 if necessary), and rejoin the conversation

Let me ask you...in 2 weeks from now will the 2nd amendment be longer than a single sentence?

Nope.

Do you think that, in 2 weeks or so, you'll be able to read, and comprehend, the entire sentence?

Oh so it IS a single sentence! Finally....we have progress.

He can be taught folks.

Now I know this has probably been tiring for you to reach this point, so why don't you turn off the computer, lie down and have a little something to eat. When you wake up from your nap, we can start lesson #2 "the difference between a comma and a period".

Gold Star for you!

 

[bripat9643]

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit.

Because the liberals who come up with this horseshit need to be refuted. Which I have done.

BTW, I "like" guns for the same reason I "like" the hammer, saw, and screwdrivers in my tool box. They enable me to do things that need doing. Even though most of the time I leave them in the box and don't think about them for days or weeks on end. Until another situation comes up where I need to use them. And then I'm glad I have them.

Then just say I like my gun and it limits my freedom to take it away. I've done nothing wrong with it and preventative law is no law at all. The argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism.

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.

not for a very long time they haven't

I have no idea what that means. Name one country where guns are legally own where the government has engaged in mass slaughter or imprisonment.

 

[bripat9643]

"Well regulated" according to usage at the time, means "well drilled" and "well trained." It doesn't mean regulated in the sense of government regulations.

Oh, so we're interpreting based upon the times? Ok. Muskets for everyone then.

Really?

Muskets are mentioned in the Second?

Definitely not. But neither is 'well trained' or 'well drilled'. Thanks for proving my point.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"​

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <[email protected]>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.​

lol, the guy who wants the federal government to have virtually NO power doing his best to argue for a powerful federal court.

Where am I doing that?

 

[daws101]

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit.

Because the liberals who come up with this horseshit need to be refuted. Which I have done.

BTW, I "like" guns for the same reason I "like" the hammer, saw, and screwdrivers in my tool box. They enable me to do things that need doing. Even though most of the time I leave them in the box and don't think about them for days or weeks on end. Until another situation comes up where I need to use them. And then I'm glad I have them.

Then just say I like my gun and it limits my freedom to take it away. I've done nothing wrong with it and preventative law is no law at all. The argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism.

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.

not for a very long time they haven't

I have no idea what that means. Name one country where guns are legally own where the government has engaged in mass slaughter or imprisonment.

france ...

 

[Auld Phart]

Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."

Save your breath. Learning and education is like kryptonite to the conservative base on this site.

Learn to read.

The to keep and bear arms was given to the people, NOT the militia.

Who makes up the militia exactly? Cows? Robots? Tulips?

in those days, men between the ages of 16-45, ( in some states 57).

NO women
NO boys under 16
NO men over the age of 45 (or 57, as the case may be)

Since 1903, there have been no state militias.

The National Guard took over their duties.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.

Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.

 

[bripat9643]

Really?

Muskets are mentioned in the Second?

Definitely not. But neither is 'well trained' or 'well drilled'. Thanks for proving my point.

Words have meaning. You don't get to change them just because it's convenient for your argument.

that's ironic you do it all the time ,

Really? Provide an example.

read any thing you've posted there are several in this thread.

I haven't changed the meaning of any words.

 

[Rustic]

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."

 

[daws101]

in France where just under a quarter of all households have guns, often between three and four per house, with around 20 million registered firearms in circulation – that’s with a population of 66 million.

 

[bripat9643]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

With several separate clauses.

that's pauses .
no where does it state that individuals have the right to bear personal arms , then again it does not prohibit them either and there's the rub.

I'm afraid so. It says "the right of the people." In all other amendments in the Bill of Rights, that means every individual.

 

[Timmy]

All our rights have some limit .

Otherwise people could just buy guns out of vending machines .

 

[daws101]

Definitely not. But neither is 'well trained' or 'well drilled'. Thanks for proving my point.

Words have meaning. You don't get to change them just because it's convenient for your argument.

that's ironic you do it all the time ,

Really? Provide an example.

read any thing you've posted there are several in this thread.

I haven't changed the meaning of any words.

yes you have ...

 

[Rustic]

You do know an "amendment" can be changed don't you? By sorta dictionary definition it already has been. And since the government already has nukes, drones and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world's countries three times over then your 9mm in your locked box in the shed aint really the deterant to government that it used to be when soldiers and civilians both had muskets.

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit. I don't want to take it off you and I don't want the federal government to do so either but at least admit to yourself that you want it because you like it and not some higher calling of holding government to account.

The soldiers that control those weapons of that military happen to be second amendment backers in the majority of them at least. You think our men and women of the military back a fucked up federal government when they threaten the Second Amendment.