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

[Rustic]

Sounds kind a like making someone buy insurance because they might need it...
Foolish little mind

Common sense. We make people do that.

I know, it's just simple extortion by the federal government

 

[daws101]

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.

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 only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up?

You've got it backwards.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms IS the statement.

Because not ALL people qualified to join the militia.

false! the message is that there was a need to have a militia .

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Having said that, I could care less who owns a gun. I also don't care if sovereign nations have nukes. I don't live in fear, and I know that the likelihood of dying by gun violence or terrorism is less than the likelihood of dying from a bee sting.

Gun violence versus bee, in the US? Stick with the bee, you'd have much better odds.

 

[Contumacious]

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."

Unfortunately, they are right.

Let me explain.

The Constitution (1787) was abolished by FDR in 1935.

FDR adopted fascism as our socioeconomic system.

Under fascism Americans do NOT have rights. They have whatever "privileges" the powers that be allow.

If Obama or Hillary appoint a fascist "justice" then our privilege to bear arms will disappear.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sounds kind a like making someone buy insurance because they might need it...
Foolish little mind

Common sense. We make people do that.

I know, it's just simple extortion by the federal government

The Feds, the States, the Counties, the Banks, you name it. Don't leave home, or even stay at home, without it.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

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 only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up?

You've got it backwards.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms IS the statement.

Because not ALL people qualified to join the militia.

false! the message is that there was a need to have a militia .

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

 

[Rustic]

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.

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?

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.

What's the need for gun-control then??

Lol

 

[daws101]

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.

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.

I think when you started throwing insults instead of actual points it became so. You want kids to die because of your stubborn adherance to ancient outdated text. And you call me a douche?

There's nothing "outdated" about it. It's the law.

Thanks for admitting you want to wipe your ass on the Constitution. That makes you a douche.

Accusing people of wanting kids to die also makes you a douche.

kids die either way.
the false accusation you toss around every chance you get is proof of who's the real douche and it aint Manchester ...

 

[bripat9643]

The 2nd Amendment uses the word militia, which, taken strictly from the time period, has nothing to do with individual gun ownership without limits. Originalists like Scalia and Cruz would NEVER allow such a loose interpretation of the Constitution if it was an issue that didn't have personal resonance. This is why they are dangerous people. For them the Constitution is always subservient to their personal politics. They are partisans of the rankest vintage.

Having said that, I could care less who owns a gun. I also don't care if sovereign nations have nukes. I don't live in fear, and I know that the likelihood of dying by gun violence or terrorism is less than the likelihood of dying from a bee sting.

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.

 

[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 only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up?

You've got it backwards.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms IS the statement.

Because not ALL people qualified to join the militia.

false! the message is that there was a need to have a militia .

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?

 

[Rustic]

Sounds kind a like making someone buy insurance because they might need it...
Foolish little mind

Common sense. We make people do that.

I know, it's just simple extortion by the federal government

The Feds, the States, the Counties, the Banks, you name it. Don't leave home, or even stay at home, without it.

Never used to need it... Of course, in a politically correct spineless society of socialism got to gain control somehow. L OL

 

[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.

I think when you started throwing insults instead of actual points it became so. You want kids to die because of your stubborn adherance to ancient outdated text. And you call me a douche?

There's nothing "outdated" about it. It's the law.

Thanks for admitting you want to wipe your ass on the Constitution. That makes you a douche.

Accusing people of wanting kids to die also makes you a douche.

kids die either way.
the false accusation you toss around every chance you get is proof of who's the real douche and it aint Manchester ...

What "false accusations?"

 

[Manchester]

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.

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?

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.

 

[daws101]

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.

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?

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.

What's the need for gun-control then??

Lol[/QUOTE} ioh no not the if not for guns a Hitler type dictator would take over ploy ....again

ioh no not the if not for guns a Hitler type dictator would take over ploy ....again[/QUOTE]

 

[hadit]

These right wingers want racists and rapists and bank robbers to have guns. Then complain about blacks in gangs having guns. How does that happen? Is the toopid thick?

Wow, how hard was that straw man to knock down? Especially since you had to make it up to start with?

 

[Rustic]

"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 only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up?

You've got it backwards.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms IS the statement.

Because not ALL people qualified to join the militia.

false! the message is that there was a need to have a militia .

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?

Military is useless without people, huh
Our military overwhelmingly backs the second amendment

 

[hadit]

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.

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?

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.

I don't want to own a gun, but I also don't want a potential assailant to know for sure I don't have one. IOW, let me CHOOSE to not own a gun, don't make that decision for me.

 

[Rustic]

Having said that, I could care less who owns a gun. I also don't care if sovereign nations have nukes. I don't live in fear, and I know that the likelihood of dying by gun violence or terrorism is less than the likelihood of dying from a bee sting.

Gun violence versus bee, in the US? Stick with the bee, you'd have much better odds.

Guns can't load themselves dumbass

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sounds kind a like making someone buy insurance because they might need it...
Foolish little mind

Common sense. We make people do that.

I know, it's just simple extortion by the federal government

The Feds, the States, the Counties, the Banks, you name it. Don't leave home, or even stay at home, without it.

Never used to need it... Of course, in a politically correct spineless society of socialism got to gain control somehow. L OL

Auto insurance is common sense. Sorry, Charlie.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Having said that, I could care less who owns a gun. I also don't care if sovereign nations have nukes. I don't live in fear, and I know that the likelihood of dying by gun violence or terrorism is less than the likelihood of dying from a bee sting.

Gun violence versus bee, in the US? Stick with the bee, you'd have much better odds.

Guns can't load themselves dumbass

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