Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Ray From Cleveland]

My arguments make perfect sense in real world scenarios. You don't even HAVE an argument. It is weak sauce, like you. Like I said, if you are afraid of guns, don't like them, then don't have one. You have no right to tell other people who have not broken any laws that they cannot own them. They have a constitutional right to own them, like it or not. That is how it goes in OUR country.

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

You are afraid of guns, obviously. Lol. You are also in fear of a woman like me defending myself.

A gun is not a defensive weapon. It never was.

Go to a self defense and stop trying to cheat by packing heat.

Go to a self-defense what????

Class.

Oh, so go take a self-defense class.

Let me tell you, I'm a 6'3" 240 lbs black belt, and I can tell you first hand there is no defense against somebody with a gun. There are few moves you can do at close range, but extremely risky and in most cases, somebody holding a gun on you are more than an arms distance.

Fact: the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am sure. It clearly states "the right of the people". The right belongs to the people. There is simply no denying it.

The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.

Every person 17 to 45 is a member of the militia there fore EVERY person 17 to 45 has the right to own possess and bear arms thanks for playing.

That is correct and that is why "well regulated" is the introduction to the Amendment is included. The State has the authority to impose regulations. As long as the regulations are followed every able bodied citizen is part of the militia and the right can not be infringed. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of whether a regulation is an infringement of not.
Not sure about the age limitations. Is that a SCOTUS ruling?

The Supreme Court has ALREADY RULED and that ruling is that the 2nd Amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL Right not a collective right. Perhaps you should actually catch up with the times?

And the Heller Court also reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, a fact far too many on the right try to ignore.

So many conservatives likewise need to catch up with the times.

You lied, you claimed no one had ever banned firearm ownership and that it was not done. I proved you wrong, just like your claim no one is trying to ban them now.

 

[ChrisL]

My arguments make perfect sense in real world scenarios. You don't even HAVE an argument. It is weak sauce, like you. Like I said, if you are afraid of guns, don't like them, then don't have one. You have no right to tell other people who have not broken any laws that they cannot own them. They have a constitutional right to own them, like it or not. That is how it goes in OUR country.

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

You are afraid of guns, obviously. Lol. You are also in fear of a woman like me defending myself.

A gun is not a defensive weapon. It never was.

Go to a self defense and stop trying to cheat by packing heat.

Go to a self-defense what????

Class.

Too bad you don't have any. Lol.

 

[Jack4jill]

Country? How about year? I live in 2016, not 1816.

Yeah...I also live in 2016, not 1816, so you need to shut the hell up right now. After all, the Constitution never granted you 1st Amendment rights over the internet.

That you got right. It doesn't.

So then wh don't you shut up? You just admitted to violating the law? Shut down your computer and don't you dare share your opinions over it ever again.

Puddles, you are a moron. The right to do something and the ability to are two different things. I can post here but I have no constitutional right to.

You are the moron here, since we actually DO have a constitutional right to own and even carry weapons. Lol.

You have a limited right, and that will go away eventually.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A gun is not a defensive weapon. It never was.

Go to a self defense and stop trying to cheat by packing heat.

Bwahahahahahaha!!! Then why does law enforcement carry guns? Because they are paid to kill people? Because law enforcement is offensive?!?

What a stupid thing to say....

Law enforcement doesn't need guns, especially when no one has any.

Really, so how are you going to make it so nobody has a gun? Care to give us some examples?

 

[ChrisL]

Yeah...I also live in 2016, not 1816, so you need to shut the hell up right now. After all, the Constitution never granted you 1st Amendment rights over the internet.

That you got right. It doesn't.

So then wh don't you shut up? You just admitted to violating the law? Shut down your computer and don't you dare share your opinions over it ever again.

Puddles, you are a moron. The right to do something and the ability to are two different things. I can post here but I have no constitutional right to.

You are the moron here, since we actually DO have a constitutional right to own and even carry weapons. Lol.

You have a limited right, and that will go away eventually.

Nope, it won't. Most Americans are FOR the 2nd amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

---
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
.

.... The previous section was simply the why. And the why (while important for sure in context), is largely irrelevant what it comes to the what. And the what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

---
Before the "why" & "what" is the intent of the writers during their era.
.

Uh....no genius. Their intent was "the right of the people". Which is why they said "the right of the people".

---
The intent was to maintain "the security of a free state" and "A well regulated militia being necessary"
was how that intent was achieved during that era.
.

The security of a free state meant that the citizenry had the means to protect itself from a tyrannical government. The intent was made very clear in other writings by the Framers of the Constitution.
The Lessons Of History - The Founding Fathers On Right To Bear Arms

The 2nd Amendment does not have a but or an except for anywhere in it. If you believe the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringe means it can then the only thing to do is get together with all of the other gun control wackadoodles and call for a constitutional amendment. I doubt you'll get many Representatives stupid enough to bring it up for a vote and you damn sure won't get many votes at the State level so shit out of luck doesn't quiet cover it.

As with the Constitution itself, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And as the Heller Court determined, the intent of the Founding Generation was to recognize an individual right to possess a firearm subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Consequently, current Second Amendment jurisprudence authorizes certain firearm regulatory measures reflecting the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

 

[PK1]

...
If she is in charge of appointing judges to the SC, we are all screwed.

---
Let it be, let it be ...

I look forward to criminals & gun fanatics getting "screwed".

Let me make it clear; I support normal citizens being able to keep/bear normal arms, but the gun fanatics don't get my vote.
.

 

[P@triot]

If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one. You failed, again.

What are you taking about?!? Could you be any dumber?!? I can absolutely build anything I want on my private property - including a "pipe bomb" or any other bomb.

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

 

[Jack4jill]

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

You are afraid of guns. If you weren't - you wouldn't be advocating outlawing and/or limiting them.

I'm not afraid of them, they are for killing like bombs and tanks, which I also want controlled and banned, and not allowed for the average numbskull like you two.

 

[ChrisL]

Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases

Other recent data confirm this pattern. A 2013 Pew Research survey showed that protection is now the top reason gun owners offer for why they choose to own a gun (in 1999, hunting was the top reason). And among the public at large, the latest Gallup survey finds that 63% of Americans now say having a gun in the home makes it a safer place compared with 30% who say it makes a home more dangerous.

 

[ChrisL]

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

You are afraid of guns. If you weren't - you wouldn't be advocating outlawing and/or limiting them.

I'm not afraid of them, they are for killing like bombs and tanks, which I also want controlled and banned, and not allowed for the average numbskull like you two.

You are the numb skull in this conversation. Lol. You started off weak, now you have moved into batshit crazy territory.

 

[Jack4jill]

If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one. You failed, again.

What are you taking about?!? Could you be any dumber?!? I can absolutely build anything I want on my private property - including a "pipe bomb" or any other bomb.

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

Build a nuke or a biological weapon? We have a nice cell for you to spend the rest of your life in.

 

[P@triot]

If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one. You failed, again.

Indisputable proof right there that liberals don't have a freaking clue what they are talking about. They just make stuff up all day long. What kind of an idiot pretends to be an authority on something they know nothing about?!?

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

...
If she is in charge of appointing judges to the SC, we are all screwed.

---
Let it be, let it be ...

I look forward to criminals & gun fanatics getting "screwed".

Let me make it clear; I support normal citizens being able to keep/bear normal arms, but the gun fanatics don't get my vote.
.

And why is that and who gets to decide who is a gun fanatic and who isn't?

 

[Jack4jill]

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

You are afraid of guns. If you weren't - you wouldn't be advocating outlawing and/or limiting them.

I'm not afraid of them, they are for killing like bombs and tanks, which I also want controlled and banned, and not allowed for the average numbskull like you two.

You are the numb skull in this conversation. Lol. You started off weak, now you have moved into batshit crazy territory.

Arms control is not crazy, it just makes gun lovers upset.

 

[P@triot]

If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one. You failed, again.

What are you taking about?!? Could you be any dumber?!? I can absolutely build anything I want on my private property - including a "pipe bomb" or any other bomb.

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

Build a nuke or a biological weapon? We have a nice cell for you to spend the rest of your life in.

Tell us again how I can't "legally own a pipe bomb". Come on chief....keep showing everyone how you make stuff up.

By the way - it's 100% legal to build a nuclear weapon as well you tool. The problem is that some of the materials needed to build one are restricted and not available to average citizens.

 

[ChrisL]

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

You are afraid of guns. If you weren't - you wouldn't be advocating outlawing and/or limiting them.

I'm not afraid of them, they are for killing like bombs and tanks, which I also want controlled and banned, and not allowed for the average numbskull like you two.

You are the numb skull in this conversation. Lol. You started off weak, now you have moved into batshit crazy territory.

Arms control is not crazy, it just makes gun lovers upset.

YOU are crazy, obviously. You don't know anything about which you speak. Lol.

We have a right to carry and own weapons. Most Americans stand behind that right. Guns are not going to disappear because you make some silly laws, and criminals will still have access to guns.

 

[Jack4jill]

If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one. You failed, again.

What are you taking about?!? Could you be any dumber?!? I can absolutely build anything I want on my private property - including a "pipe bomb" or any other bomb.

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

Keep your pipe bombs at home, like your guns.

 

[PK1]

Bombs are not arms, and nobody needs a bomb for self-defense.

---
Apparently, English is not your strong point.
ARMS:
"weapons and ammunition; armaments."
.