The 2nd Amendment for dumbocrats

[P@triot]

There's no good reason for you to have a gun.

Lets be honest Joe - there is absolutely no good reason for a self-admitted communist like you to have an opinion - but we let you have one anyway.

And I could provide 1,000 reasons why I need a gun. Reason #1 would be to protect this nation from radical communist asshole like you.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would you want a court to lie about what the 2nd Amend means, Joe? Besides, you need SCOTUS to do that now, as no other court can overrule the decisions in Heller and McDonald.

Scalia has a heart attack. Obama appoints his replacement. Heller and McDonald are reconsidered. DONE!

Before Heller, the second amendment was meant to mean Militias.

Hey Joe - I've got some really bad news for you. The 1st Amendment was only intended for the media. It was NEVER intended for "regular people". Therefore, effective immediately and in accordance with your wishes to operate legally within the bounds of the Constitution - you must shut the fuck up and go away.

The 1st Amendment was never intended as a tool to destroy the Constitution or America. I've already proved this in a other thread in which you got your ass handed to you (as usual).

Game. Set. Match.

The word "Media" is never mentioned in the first Amendment. The word "Press" is, but that is a specifically SEPARATE right from freedom of speech, religion, or the right to petition the government for a regress of greivences....

The right to bear arms is DIRECTLY linked to "Well Regulated Militias".

And the very fact that you can't own a Howitzer, a Fully automated machine gun or a stinger missile shows that they intend to keep it that way.

 

[JoeB131]

There's no good reason for you to have a gun.

Lets be honest Joe - there is absolutely no good reason for a self-admitted communist like you to have an opinion - but we let you have one anyway.

And I could provide 1,000 reasons why I need a gun. Reason #1 would be to protect this nation from radical communist asshole like you.

So you are going to go down and sign up for the military, then, right? If you are so hot to defend this country from the menace we "defeated" 20 years go. Heck, it might even be safe for you now.

They might even let you have a gun, until they figure out your nuts!

 

[P@triot]

Scalia has a heart attack. Obama appoints his replacement. Heller and McDonald are reconsidered. DONE!

Before Heller, the second amendment was meant to mean Militias.

The very first case which found a collective right was Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 83 P. 619 (1905). Previous to that all other courts recognized an individual right. Not one single case and not one single legal scholar held a different view. US v Miller clearly ....

Okay, without going through this tiresome nonsense, let's concede that the courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean limits on gun ownership- and in fact, they still do even with Heller.

here's the thing about the Supreme Court. It sways with public opinion, and the majority of households in this country don't have guns in them.

Now if the gun industry and the NRA were smart, they'd self-regulate. They'd clean up their act just like industries like Hollywood or the Alcohol industry did when their products created problems. They actually made themselves part of the solution and usually avoided onerous government regulations.

The Gun INdustry isn't doing that. To them, Nancy Lanza is a prime repeat customer, and they want to keep selling her guns, even if they aren't the best thing for her.

And this right here is glaring evidence how why you are so insanely stupid. It does not matter that the Supreme Court "sways". The Supreme Court is the judicial branch - they do not make laws. Laws are made by the legislative branch. The Constitution is written in black & white, it says exactly what it says, and it is not open to interpretation.

The Supreme Courts job is to interpret laws/cases/etc. as they (the laws/cases/etc.) apply to the Constitution - not the Constitution itself you uneducated hillbilly...

You can't be this stupid. This is just your immaturity showing through as you get your kicks acting like a troll...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, simply put, the Framers wrote a constitution designed to protect individual liberties (including the right to keep and bear arms) and curtail the power of the federal government two years before the Bill of Rights was even drafted and four years before it went into effect. James Wilson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others all explained at length why a bill of rights was unnecessary, and how the Constitution protected our rights even in the absence of such a bill:

For why declare that things shall not be done [as in a bill of rights] which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, emphasis added.)

In other words, the Constitution contains no provisions ceding to the federal government a person’s right to keep and bear arms; thus the federal government has no authority to infringe in this area. Additionally, again from Hamilton in Federalist No. 84,

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS [capital letters in original].

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

 

[JoeB131]

[

And this right here is glaring evidence how why you are so insanely stupid. It does not matter that the Supreme Court "sways". The Supreme Court is the judicial branch - they do not make laws. Laws are made by the legislative branch. The Constitution is written in black & white, it says exactly what it says, and it is not open to interpretation.

The Supreme Courts job is to interpret laws/cases/etc. as they (the laws/cases/etc.) apply to the Constitution - not the Constitution itself you uneducated hillbilly...

You can't be this stupid. This is just your immaturity showing through as you get your kicks acting like a troll...

I think you are really the one who is naive.

Of course, the courts make law. Usually the laws the legistlatures are too gutless to make.

Which is why the important decisions that moved us forward didn't come out of Congress but the Supreme Court.

Now we just have to get rid of those knuckledraggers that Ray-Gun and the Bushes left there... and we can again.

 

[PaulS1950]

The militia consists of every able-bodied person in the country - the individual citizens. We therefore have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

 

[P@triot]

THESE ARE THE FACTS — READ THEM — LEARN THEM — SHARE THEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) [1], and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Dealers
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.

Private Sales
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.

Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2]

Gun Shows
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.

A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3]

Prosecutions
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.[4]

“Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.

According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

 

[JoeB131]

The militia consists of every able-bodied person in the country - the individual citizens. We therefore have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

That's really a stretch.

If that were really the case, then why don't citizens have a right to.

Tanks
Howitzers
Full Automatic Weapons.
Tactical Nuclear Devices.
Anthrax Shells

Oh, that's right. Because that shit's too dangerous for an average citizen to have!

And so is an assault rifle.

 

[JoeB131]

Poodle, the NRA got hijacked by Frothy LaPeirre.

It used to support common sense gun laws... it just doesn't now..

 

[P@triot]

The militia consists of every able-bodied person in the country - the individual citizens. We therefore have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

That's really a stretch.

If that were really the case, then why don't citizens have a right to.

Tanks
Howitzers
Full Automatic Weapons.
Tactical Nuclear Devices.
Anthrax Shells

Oh, that's right. Because that shit's too dangerous for an average citizen to have!

And so is an assault rifle.

Actually, they have a right to all but the WMD's stupid. At the time the Constitution was written, the cannon was the most sophisticated weapon. Do you have any idea how many farms had cannons?

Furthermore, our founders were smart enough to realize that a self-admitted communist like you would come along and act like a troll just for kicks. That's why the said The Right To Bear ARMS and not just "guns", or "muskets".

An arms dealer deals in weapons far beyond just guns.

 

[P@triot]

Poodle, the NRA got hijacked by Frothy LaPeirre.

It used to support common sense gun laws... it just doesn't now..

Please cite above what is not "common sense"? Can't? Yeah - didn't think so...

 

[PaulS1950]

The militia consists of every able-bodied person in the country - the individual citizens. We therefore have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

That's really a stretch.

If that were really the case, then why don't citizens have a right to.

Tanks
Howitzers
Full Automatic Weapons.
Tactical Nuclear Devices.
Anthrax Shells

Oh, that's right. Because that shit's too dangerous for an average citizen to have!

And so is an assault rifle.

Joe,
perhaps you should look at this to find out what is actually legal to own and shoot in the USA:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=OQnU1t7UzgM]Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show - YouTube[/ame]

These meets go on in areas across the USA for those who spend the $200 and fill out the paperwork to legally own "real assault weapons".

 

[P@triot]

There's no good reason for you to have a gun.

I would like to submit this as Exhibit A in response to your utterly absurd claim "there is no good reason for you to have a gun". This comes from a fellow radical liberal such as yourself Joe....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/272886-the-right-to-bear-arms-40.html#post6781443

 

[P@triot]

[

And this right here is glaring evidence how why you are so insanely stupid. It does not matter that the Supreme Court "sways". The Supreme Court is the judicial branch - they do not make laws. Laws are made by the legislative branch. The Constitution is written in black & white, it says exactly what it says, and it is not open to interpretation.

The Supreme Courts job is to interpret laws/cases/etc. as they (the laws/cases/etc.) apply to the Constitution - not the Constitution itself you uneducated hillbilly...

You can't be this stupid. This is just your immaturity showing through as you get your kicks acting like a troll...

I think you are really the one who is naive.

Of course, the courts make law. Usually the laws the legistlatures are too gutless to make.

Which is why the important decisions that moved us forward didn't come out of Congress but the Supreme Court.

Now we just have to get rid of those knuckledraggers that Ray-Gun and the Bushes left there... and we can again.

You heard it here folks! The troll claims that the judicial branch makes laws

 

[P@triot]

There's no good reason for you to have a gun.

There is truly no good reason for you to own a car Joe. And since automobiles account for more deaths than guns - including the deaths of children - you must immediately surrender your vehicle. And you know I'm right.

 

[Antares]

LOL Joe...

The Constution says we can have guns, the Courts have UPHELD that we can have guns..and frightened little bunnies like you don't like it.

Given the latter your argument is irrelevant.

Guy, you keep avoiding the discussion.

DIrty little secret. I don't care about guns that much one way or the other. But since the gun nuts are doing the bidding of the plutocrats, I'll laugh when the ATF takes their toys.

By all means Joey just make shit up as you go.

First, prior to 2008, before my Romney loving boss fired me for having medical issues, I voted for mostly republicans, not these mythical democrats you talk about.

Second, even if this "victimization" thing happened like you think it did, how did that cause the recession?

The Recession happened because the right got EVERYTHING it wanted. They got free trade, they got de-regulation of banks and industry, they got weak enforcement by the SEC and such...

You just aren't very bright. Maybe you need to listen to more Hate Radio and let them do your thinking for you.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The militia consists of every able-bodied person in the country - the individual citizens. We therefore have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

That's really a stretch.

If that were really the case, then why don't citizens have a right to.

Tanks
Howitzers
Full Automatic Weapons.
Tactical Nuclear Devices.
Anthrax Shells

Oh, that's right. Because that shit's too dangerous for an average citizen to have!

And so is an assault rifle.

Because those things are not arms as that term is employed in the 2nd Amend. An arm at common law was a single man portable and use item of offense or defense which a person commonly employs in man on man combat. I can give you the olde english version if you wish, where they use flowery language and sometimes use f's as an s making things dificult to read, but the source is Sir Edward Coke, Institutes of the Lawes Of England, Commentaries on Littleton 161(b), 162(a) It is available on google books if you are interested, but navigation through it is difficult.

To make it real simple for you Joe

Things that go "bang" are ok

Things that go "boom" are not ok

Things that go "rat a tat tat" are oft times described as "spray and pray" and are more in the nature of area weapons, and thus fall under the category of things that go boom.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So if the discussion were about a different right - say the right of religious choice or free speech.
Would you be willing to give up your belief? You would have others to choose from so that would be ok?
Or we take away your right to speak about your government. You would still have plenty of other things to talk about. Would that be ok?

While I will be truly happy the day religion goes away because people grow up and stop believing in sky pixies, a religion does not have the capability to mow down a classroom full of pre-schoolers...

There's no good reason for you to have a gun.

That is not for you nor anyone else too decide whether or not I need a firearm. Your opinion is irrelevant.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The word "Media" is never mentioned in the first Amendment. The word "Press" is, but that is a specifically SEPARATE right from freedom of speech, religion, or the right to petition the government for a regress of greivences....

The right to bear arms is DIRECTLY linked to "Well Regulated Militias".

Because it is seperated by a semi colon? The 2nd as original introduced by Madison on June 8, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It got switched around and changed in a committee of style for which there are no records. In any event, the current language is easily divided into two phrases, Miller calls them the "declaration" and the "guarantee", the dissent in Heller calls them the preamble and the operative provision while the majority in Heller calls it the preface and the operative provision.

In more modern phraseology it can be stated thusly:

Because we need a well regulated militia for the security of a free state we are going to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms and the duty to have arms and provide for the defense of the community grew up together, they are two different sides of the same coin. If you are really interested I can explain. If you are a history nerd it starts with Viking raiders and King Alfred the Great and progresses to the various Assize of Arms statutes, which leads to Agincourt, finally we skip past the Republican era of Cromwell and proceed to the restoration and then on to Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights...

or the right to petition the government for a regress of greivences....

LOL, freudian slip or typo?