The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[dilloduck]

infringe, jurisdiction! Hey, let's just make up our own definitions.

You mean like for "marriage" ?

 

[ChrisL]

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

None of the regulations considered in Heller were upheld. Not one.

For God's sake, Scalia went through what the govt could do. Heller won cause the city went too far.

You clearly do not understand how the court works.
No regulation of firearms was upheld by Heller; all of the regulations under scrutiny were struck.
None off the other regulations anyone speaks of were considered by the court, and so it is impossible to soundly argue that the court upheld other regulations.

That's right, the court only said that while Chicago (was it Chicago or Washington - can't remember) was in violation of the constitution, SOME regulations may not be considered an infringement of the right, but they did not specify.

 

[Valerie]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

 

[Valerie]

the second amendment speaks specifically to what is necessary to the security of a free state and it presupposes this necessity as provided by regulation in order to do so...

ours is a government by the people for the people and legislative bodies possess the authority to regulate firearms without infringing upon individual constitutional rights...

 

[ChrisL]

the second amendment speaks specifically to what is necessary to the security of a free state and it presupposes this necessity as provided by regulation in order to do so...

ours is a government by the people for the people and legislative bodies possess the authority to regulate firearms without infringing upon individual constitutional rights...

I have to disagree. The Bill of Rights outlines the rights of the PEOPLE.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the second amendment speaks specifically to what is necessary to the security of a free state and it presupposes this necessity as provided by regulation in order to do so...

ours is a government by the people for the people and legislative bodies possess the authority to regulate firearms without infringing upon individual constitutional rights...

actually it says that it is the right of the people

and that it will not be infringed

 

[jon_berzerk]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?

so the can shoot well and perform well


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

certainly not by the feds

the Constitution only allows


calling forth and

to provide for

the militia

 

[2aguy]

Stop screaming at us!!! Is that obnoxious font size really necessary?

YEP, ABSOLUTELY. THE FONT SIZE IS ONLY A PROBLEM WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MESSAGE.

No, it's rudeness on the net. I join in ChrisL's complaint.

IMHO you only need a giant font if you have an argument that can't pass muster on its own.

Please knock it off, OK?

I say let him post how he wants.....who cares if he uses Abigail font and makes it bold.........his post, let him out the way he wants...

 

[Valerie]

" 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. "



legislators and regulators have been parsing this sentence for ages...

i note the first 2 clauses as a dependent presupposition to the right, and i see "the people" as a fine balance of individuals and the collective... together we define what it means to keep and bear arms and how to regulate ourselves...

 

[ChrisL]

Stop screaming at us!!! Is that obnoxious font size really necessary?

YEP, ABSOLUTELY. THE FONT SIZE IS ONLY A PROBLEM WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MESSAGE.

No, it's rudeness on the net. I join in ChrisL's complaint.

IMHO you only need a giant font if you have an argument that can't pass muster on its own.

Please knock it off, OK?

I say let him post how he wants.....who cares if he uses Abigail font and makes it bold.........his post, let him out the way he wants...

It's obnoxious though. It's like the internet equivalent of screaming at everyone.

 

[2aguy]

Stop screaming at us!!! Is that obnoxious font size really necessary?

YEP, ABSOLUTELY. THE FONT SIZE IS ONLY A PROBLEM WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MESSAGE.

No, it's rudeness on the net. I join in ChrisL's complaint.

IMHO you only need a giant font if you have an argument that can't pass muster on its own.

Please knock it off, OK?

I say let him post how he wants.....who cares if he uses Abigail font and makes it bold.........his post, let him out the way he wants...

It's obnoxious though. It's like the internet equivalent of screaming at everyone.

EAch to their own...but why is it a problem...it isn't like he is actually screaming, it is just his style...and even if it was meant as a scream, he isn't actually screaming let alone anywhere where you could hear it.

 

[ChrisL]

Stop screaming at us!!! Is that obnoxious font size really necessary?

YEP, ABSOLUTELY. THE FONT SIZE IS ONLY A PROBLEM WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MESSAGE.

No, it's rudeness on the net. I join in ChrisL's complaint.

IMHO you only need a giant font if you have an argument that can't pass muster on its own.

Please knock it off, OK?

I say let him post how he wants.....who cares if he uses Abigail font and makes it bold.........his post, let him out the way he wants...

It's obnoxious though. It's like the internet equivalent of screaming at everyone.

EAch to their own...but why is it a problem...it isn't like he is actually screaming, it is just his style...and even if it was meant as a scream, he isn't actually screaming let alone anywhere where you could hear it.

It's annoying to be scrolling through the posts and come upon the gigantic words in his posts. He needs someone to tell him computer etiquette.

 

[ChrisL]

Stop screaming at us!!! Is that obnoxious font size really necessary?

YEP, ABSOLUTELY. THE FONT SIZE IS ONLY A PROBLEM WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MESSAGE.

No, it's rudeness on the net. I join in ChrisL's complaint.

IMHO you only need a giant font if you have an argument that can't pass muster on its own.

Please knock it off, OK?

I say let him post how he wants.....who cares if he uses Abigail font and makes it bold.........his post, let him out the way he wants...

It's obnoxious though. It's like the internet equivalent of screaming at everyone.

EAch to their own...but why is it a problem...it isn't like he is actually screaming, it is just his style...and even if it was meant as a scream, he isn't actually screaming let alone anywhere where you could hear it.

It's not really THAT big of a deal, but someone should tell him. That is considered being "rude" on the net.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds, which has officers appointed by the states. This is THE militia which would protect the country, not any old militia which might just go and do what it likes.

In fact any old militia isn't protected at all.

But it has nothing to do with the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms, other than the right to keep arms is so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to bear arms is so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.
These are individual rights, for all those people who'll misread everything I say. The right is for an individual to own weapons, and an individual to be in the militia.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the second amendment speaks specifically to what is necessary to the security of a free state and it presupposes this necessity as provided by regulation in order to do so...

ours is a government by the people for the people and legislative bodies possess the authority to regulate firearms without infringing upon individual constitutional rights...

actually it says that it is the right of the people

and that it will not be infringed

Not to be infringed merely means before due process. All rights are more or less limited. A few which concern prisoners not so limited.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Your Richard is your problem and your fixation with all this "guns make the weak strong" crap!

You'll have to produce non biased non NRA bullshit from the FBI crime stats to convince me of that pile of dung! But you can't and won't back up your assertion that: I'll wait here for your post deflecting from your assertion.

Okay asswipe...I was civil...and like all the other lefties you are a rude asshole.

I don't cite the NRA....I use the FBI crime tables and the CDC and other studies.....a lot of them from anti gunners...like the gun self defense study from the Clinton Justice Department, created and run by two rabid anti gunners....what did they find...? That Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent crime and save lives......they were then sent to the antarctic to study gun crime there........

1.5 million....vs 8,454 gun murders in 2013.

1.5 million....vs. 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013.

So yes...guns save far more lives than they take.....asswipe.

Sure you were civil, firing your mouth off from the get go, pissant! If you want respect, give it in return FROM THE START. I don't suffer FOOLS!

WOW, you used the FBI crime tables as noted, I'm impressed, sorta! However, those are the stats for gun homicides and accidental gun deaths...that's a FAIL! You claimed,

"...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them."

Where is the stat for gun crimes committed and gun crimes prevented as you claimed. That is called changing the narrative and that is a FAIL!

And all that other BS from pro gun NRA lobby and their sycophantic relays is biased and bullshit and puts you as a liar because I started to post to it and as I was writing my response to your original of this post to which I'm now responding, portions disappeared as I move around the cyber sphere. You had cited this: GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense? . . . . . GunCite . com is your typical NRA sycophantic junk source for biased, less than objective pro gun indoctrination. Your precise claim, which is another falsehood and FAIL was;

"I don't cite the NRA....I use the FBI crime tables and the CDC and other studies.....a lot of them from anti gunners..."

To top it all off you close with this kind and civil bit of sophistry all the way around;

"So yes...guns save far more lives than they take.....asswipe".

A FAILED post with falsehoods to boot!

Moron...gunsite just linked to the research you dumb ass......the link is to actual gun studies by trained economists and criminologists over a period of 40 years. Many of those researchers are anti gun researchers......


You are an idiot.

I cited the link you had posted before you edited it out. I pulled it out of my internet history to cite it. Was it from the FBI crime stats as you claimed? NO was it relevant to your claim? NO! Was it dated going back to the early 1990's YES! And even if they were from the FBI, AND it was relevant, AND it was timely, where were your citations to those pertinent parts to support your claim?

We'll never know because you hit edit and whoosh it was gone because you realized I wouldn't buy that bullshit unless it was covered in FBI source material! You FAILED! You could have saved some embarrassment, but instead you went full steam ahead with BS and bombast!

You should have cooled off from the licking you took this morning on that other thread instead engaging your fingers before engaging your brain. Don't start a discussion calling the other person a moron in your first line, then have that epitaph come back and bite you on your ass. That makes YOU out to appear less than credible!

Time to go...The Huskies at Boise State and this I Chris Peterson's 2nd year at Washington. GO MUSTANGS!

Look dipshit.....I posted three posts in succession....the first the gun self defense studies, next the studies on guns as the best defense against rape and the last the article on how guns and a gun self defense course stopped rapes in Florida.....I broke those down to reduce the size of each post.

Dipshit.

You edited the first post. I had to change up my response to it after the edit. Your first post of the three had the BS GunCite . com listed first followed by another one or two I don't recall and that followed by multiple paragraphs (6-8) with blue font. Scanning those, I saw no reference to FBI crime stats then the damn post was edited. Either you or an admin or maybe a mod could do an edit and I don't think an admin or mod did it.

Your second post had the same disgusting heading as the first followed by three or four paragraphs in blue font also which I think you left intact. The third paragraph I didn't see until I had posted my reply to your first which was the edited one!

You've now responded twice to it denying your editing prowess but not a damn thing about the full content of my post. Obviously, that is purposeful as an attempt to deflect from addressing its full content which you obviously don't wish to go into. Hey, that all right, I wouldn't want to defend that crap either after making all those assertions and being so impotent to respond with the FBI crime stats to prove your contention/boast!

This is two mornings in a row now you've been handed your hat. Perhaps you should be more circumspect with your claims.

 

[Contumacious]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds, which has officers appointed by the states. This is THE militia which would protect the country, not any old militia which might just go and do what it likes.

In fact any old militia isn't protected at all.

But it has nothing to do with the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms, other than the right to keep arms is so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to bear arms is so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.
These are individual rights, for all those people who'll misread everything I say. The right is for an individual to own weapons, and an individual to be in the militia.

http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/11/11/todays-thoughts-nov-9-2013/
What Is a Well-Regulated Militia? http://www.usmessageboard.com/url?s...e6kQRePJVFSiFjN9A&sig2=Xqq9UC3owPXJlS_2dxIeMw


So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, kept in good order; well-trained and equipped.

The men who wrote and approved the Second Amendment desired that every yeoman farmer – every able-bodied man – know how to handle a gun for self-defense of himself, his family and his country. And more, they believed he had every right to do these things

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds, which has officers appointed by the states. This is THE militia which would protect the country, not any old militia which might just go and do what it likes.

In fact any old militia isn't protected at all.

But it has nothing to do with the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms, other than the right to keep arms is so the militia would have a ready supply of arms, and the right to bear arms is so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.
These are individual rights, for all those people who'll misread everything I say. The right is for an individual to own weapons, and an individual to be in the militia.

What Is a Well-Regulated Militia?


So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, kept in good order; well-trained and equipped.

The men who wrote and approved the Second Amendment desired that every yeoman farmer – every able-bodied man – know how to handle a gun for self-defense of himself, his family and his country. And more, they believed he had every right to do these things

Well the point being that the 2A would make THE militia well equipped as men would have armed. It'd also have troops, as in the people, and all this protected.

The amendment basically says a well trained and well equipped militia is necessary for the country to be in good health. Therefore they're making the RKBAs to protect this militia.

That's the 2A.

 

[Contumacious]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds,a.

The founding fathers NEVER intended to allow the state militia to be called by the feds

"Liberals from Patrick Henry to Jefferson to Richard Cobden all understood standing armies as engines of government force. The best answer to this, the liberals believed, was to make military force decentralized, localized, and subject to local approval from a multitude of (often conflicting) jurisdictions. This built in diversity of opinions and an informal system of vetoes provided barriers to capricious use of military force. In other words, politicians could only deploy the power of armies after obtaining a consensus among those who would provide the money and the men needed for military action.."


PS "liberals" referred to classical liberalism - not the liberals as the term is used nowadays which are fascists or government supremacists


.

 

[2aguy]

Okay asswipe...I was civil...and like all the other lefties you are a rude asshole.

I don't cite the NRA....I use the FBI crime tables and the CDC and other studies.....a lot of them from anti gunners...like the gun self defense study from the Clinton Justice Department, created and run by two rabid anti gunners....what did they find...? That Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent crime and save lives......they were then sent to the antarctic to study gun crime there........

1.5 million....vs 8,454 gun murders in 2013.

1.5 million....vs. 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013.

So yes...guns save far more lives than they take.....asswipe.

Sure you were civil, firing your mouth off from the get go, pissant! If you want respect, give it in return FROM THE START. I don't suffer FOOLS!

WOW, you used the FBI crime tables as noted, I'm impressed, sorta! However, those are the stats for gun homicides and accidental gun deaths...that's a FAIL! You claimed,

"...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them."

Where is the stat for gun crimes committed and gun crimes prevented as you claimed. That is called changing the narrative and that is a FAIL!

And all that other BS from pro gun NRA lobby and their sycophantic relays is biased and bullshit and puts you as a liar because I started to post to it and as I was writing my response to your original of this post to which I'm now responding, portions disappeared as I move around the cyber sphere. You had cited this: GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense? . . . . . GunCite . com is your typical NRA sycophantic junk source for biased, less than objective pro gun indoctrination. Your precise claim, which is another falsehood and FAIL was;

"I don't cite the NRA....I use the FBI crime tables and the CDC and other studies.....a lot of them from anti gunners..."

To top it all off you close with this kind and civil bit of sophistry all the way around;

"So yes...guns save far more lives than they take.....asswipe".

A FAILED post with falsehoods to boot!

Moron...gunsite just linked to the research you dumb ass......the link is to actual gun studies by trained economists and criminologists over a period of 40 years. Many of those researchers are anti gun researchers......


You are an idiot.

I cited the link you had posted before you edited it out. I pulled it out of my internet history to cite it. Was it from the FBI crime stats as you claimed? NO was it relevant to your claim? NO! Was it dated going back to the early 1990's YES! And even if they were from the FBI, AND it was relevant, AND it was timely, where were your citations to those pertinent parts to support your claim?

We'll never know because you hit edit and whoosh it was gone because you realized I wouldn't buy that bullshit unless it was covered in FBI source material! You FAILED! You could have saved some embarrassment, but instead you went full steam ahead with BS and bombast!

You should have cooled off from the licking you took this morning on that other thread instead engaging your fingers before engaging your brain. Don't start a discussion calling the other person a moron in your first line, then have that epitaph come back and bite you on your ass. That makes YOU out to appear less than credible!

Time to go...The Huskies at Boise State and this I Chris Peterson's 2nd year at Washington. GO MUSTANGS!

Look dipshit.....I posted three posts in succession....the first the gun self defense studies, next the studies on guns as the best defense against rape and the last the article on how guns and a gun self defense course stopped rapes in Florida.....I broke those down to reduce the size of each post.

Dipshit.

You edited the first post. I had to change up my response to it after the edit. Your first post of the three had the BS GunCite . com listed first followed by another one or two I don't recall and that followed by multiple paragraphs (6-8) with blue font. Scanning those, I saw no reference to FBI crime stats then the damn post was edited. Either you or an admin or maybe a mod could do an edit and I don't think an admin or mod did it.

Your second post had the same disgusting heading as the first followed by three or four paragraphs in blue font also which I think you left intact. The third paragraph I didn't see until I had posted my reply to your first which was the edited one!

You've now responded twice to it denying your editing prowess but not a damn thing about the full content of my post. Obviously, that is purposeful as an attempt to deflect from addressing its full content which you obviously don't wish to go into. Hey, that all right, I wouldn't want to defend that crap either after making all those assertions and being so impotent to respond with the FBI crime stats to prove your contention/boast!

This is two mornings in a row now you've been handed your hat. Perhaps you should be more circumspect with your claims.