The 2nd Amendment for dumbocrats

[Lonestar_logic]

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].

Again, who gives a fuck what the Founding Slave-Rapists thought? Frankly, I'm tired of things running so badly because we limit our thinking to what these idiots thought.

Practical matter- the two reasons you gun nuts give for wanting guns are downright silly.


A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy. Proven. Scientific. Fact. You might as well protect your family with a rabid pit bull. It would have about the same effect.

The other even sillier reason you guys give is that you need them to overthrow the government some day. Like most of you would get off your fat asses to do that, but even so, the government will always have more guns, bigger guns and be a lot better at using them.

And when they do come after you, most of your neighbors will be cheering because you were scaring the children.

In October 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Arthur Kellermann et al. which was widely received as the definitive statement of the proposition that firearms kept in the home not only fail to increase the security of the household, but actually are a risk factor for becoming a victim of homicide. This 1993 paper followed an earlier (1986) effort by Kellermann and Donald Reay, also published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is the source of the most famous statistic in the gun control debate: that a firearm kept in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder.

Evaluation of the 1986 study. There are at least two important difficulties with the 1986 study and the "43 times" statistic to which it gave rise. The first, often-overlooked problem is that more than 85 percent of the Kellermann-Reay gunshot victims were suicides and not victims of domestic quarrels. The instrumentality-dependency of suicide is a hotly debated topic, but at present the evidence is very thin for the hypothesis that any appreciable portion of observed suicides is a function of the availability of firearms.

It is always possible, but remains entirely conjectural, that a handy firearm does raise the rate of suicide. If so, this would be an example of the "Zimring-Cook" effect--the proposition that a certain percentage of fatal incidents begin ambiguously so far as the intentions of the actor are concerned, and result in death only because an almost-always deadly weapon like a gun is ready at hand.

It may well be true that a Zimring-Cook effect occurs in some contexts, but it is difficult to see why suicide would be one of them. Internationally, rates of suicide appear to be quite independent both of gun control laws and patterns of firearms ownership in civilian populations. Very high rates of suicide are found, for example, in firearms-free populations like Japan--but of course the rates of suicide in such places might be even higher if firearms were more readily available. And low rates of suicide are found in such relatively well-armed jurisdictions as Israel and New Zealand--but of course those rates might be still lower were firearms absent. Such prospects are impossible to rule out with existing research techniques.

If, as a concession to plausibility, one eliminates the suicide data from the 1986 Kellermann-Reay study, the "43 times" statistic is transfigured into one less imposing: a firearm kept in the home is six times more likely to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. But even this number is of precarious significance, for it embodies the dubious assumption that comparing "body counts" is a meaningful way to report the usefulness of firearms.

Comparative body counts are not ordinarily used to measure the utility of firearms or the use of force. One does not measure the effectiveness of a police department, for example, by comparing the number of officers and criminals killed over some time period. Rather, one asks what effect the police have had on the rate of crime. Similarly, one should not compare the number of burglars or other intruders and civilians killed by domestic firearms, but rather ask how many burglars or other intruders were driven away or deterred by the firearm.

Any meaningful tally of firearms "use" must include not merely the fraction of cases in which someone was killed, but also cases in which there was a wounding and, for that matter, the probably much larger number of cases in which a weapon was used simply to threaten, but was not discharged at all. Indeed, the case is broader even than that. We should also try to estimate the number of crimes that did not occur at all because of the prospect of meeting armed resistance. Research by criminologist Don Kates offers reason to believe that the probability of encountering an armed defender does enter into a potential criminal's calculations.

Evaluation of the 1993 study.

Gun Facts!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

why idiots think only THEY know what the founders meant and then think that their misguided ideas should be forced down the throats of the rest of us is just bizare.


They are little tyrants who dont give a rats ass that the whole constitution was made in the first place to protect people and NOT guns or nut ball radio hosts money making idiot magnets rantings

We know what they meant because we read their own words you pitiful excuse for a human being.

 

[P@triot]

A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation. (Oh and the pop guns they allow you to have will not defeat the weapons our military has)

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

The weakest argument in the dumbocrat arsenal (and yet you're forced to come back with it again and again because you've got nothing else to combat a Constitutional right other than to attempt to pervert the words of said Constitutional right).

First of all, the reason they cited is not the least bit relevant. The fact is, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Game. Set. Match. stupid...

Second - the militia argument

We now come back to those words so loved by the gun grabbers, “well regulated militia.” Knocking down this silly little argument is vitally important because the gun grabbers’ notion that says the Second Amendment reads, in essence, “militias are acceptable” is simply and undeniably the only arrow in their quiver. Take that from them, and they are finished.

Liberals do not maintain that the Second Amendment says “We can take your guns.” They believe (or pretend to believe) that the Second Amendment reads, “Militias are acceptable.” Being wholly ignorant of the doctrine of enumerated powers, liberals think this is enough to deny us our gun rights; for if the federal government, unrestrained by an enumeration, was empowered to legislate on all matters not put off limits by the Bill of Rights, and if the Second Amendment actually did read “militias are acceptable,” then the federal government would indeed have the authority to regulate our ownership of firearms.

A constitutional amendment that reads “militias are acceptable,” no more gives the federal government the authority to legislate against guns than it does the authority to tell me what color I may dye my hair, or what size carburetor I may put under my hood. If I had a right to buy guns before the “militias are acceptable” amendment was enacted, then I have a right to buy guns afterward.

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation. (Oh and the pop guns they allow you to have will not defeat the weapons our military has)

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Why would we need to defend ourselves from the military? They took an oath to defend the Constitution, not to defend the idiot politicians you clowns voted into office.

In other words, those guys are on our side.

 

[BlindBoo]

A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation. (Oh and the pop guns they allow you to have will not defeat the weapons our military has)

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

The weakest argument in the dumbocrat arsenal (and yet you're forced to come back with it again and again because you've got nothing else to combat a Constitutional right other than to attempt to pervert the words of said Constitutional right).

First of all, the reason they cited is not the least bit relevant. The fact is, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Game. Set. Match. stupid...

Second - the militia argument

We now come back to those words so loved by the gun grabbers, “well regulated militia.” Knocking down this silly little argument is vitally important because the gun grabbers’ notion that says the Second Amendment reads, in essence, “militias are acceptable” is simply and undeniably the only arrow in their quiver. Take that from them, and they are finished.

Liberals do not maintain that the Second Amendment says “We can take your guns.” They believe (or pretend to believe) that the Second Amendment reads, “Militias are acceptable.” Being wholly ignorant of the doctrine of enumerated powers, liberals think this is enough to deny us our gun rights; for if the federal government, unrestrained by an enumeration, was empowered to legislate on all matters not put off limits by the Bill of Rights, and if the Second Amendment actually did read “militias are acceptable,” then the federal government would indeed have the authority to regulate our ownership of firearms.

A constitutional amendment that reads “militias are acceptable,” no more gives the federal government the authority to legislate against guns than it does the authority to tell me what color I may dye my hair, or what size carburetor I may put under my hood. If I had a right to buy guns before the “militias are acceptable” amendment was enacted, then I have a right to buy guns afterward.

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

Amend the Constitution. Because a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation, and the proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

 

[P@triot]

The other even sillier reason you guys give is that you need them to overthrow the government some day. Like most of you would get off your fat asses to do that, but even so, the government will always have more guns, bigger guns and be a lot better at using them.

This video just came out today JoeB. A member of the press approaches New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and receives a hand shake and cordial greeting. However, as soon as he asks a valid question that Michael Bloomberg doesn't like (which is if your such a staunch advocate of gun control, why are you surrounded by armed security) - the reporter is immediately harassed by the security detail. This is down right scary how they follow him around the city and ask for personal information despite acknowledging he has committed no crime.

I personally contacted Mayor Blooomberg with this exact same question over a year ago and his office gave some bullshit response about "curbing the flow of illegal guns" (which has nothing to do with his policies or my question). They can't acknowledge the extraordinary, sickening hypocrisy, so they change the subject (just like dumbocrats here on U.S.M.B. do).

So I ask you Joe, after watching this video, are you comfortable with your "leaders" (who act like this) being armed to the teeth while they disarm you? Can't wait to hear your lying response how you're ok with this - even though it's the same thing Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and Hussien did...

» The Astounding Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation. (Oh and the pop guns they allow you to have will not defeat the weapons our military has)

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

The weakest argument in the dumbocrat arsenal (and yet you're forced to come back with it again and again because you've got nothing else to combat a Constitutional right other than to attempt to pervert the words of said Constitutional right).

First of all, the reason they cited is not the least bit relevant. The fact is, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Game. Set. Match. stupid...

Second - the militia argument

We now come back to those words so loved by the gun grabbers, “well regulated militia.” Knocking down this silly little argument is vitally important because the gun grabbers’ notion that says the Second Amendment reads, in essence, “militias are acceptable” is simply and undeniably the only arrow in their quiver. Take that from them, and they are finished.

Liberals do not maintain that the Second Amendment says “We can take your guns.” They believe (or pretend to believe) that the Second Amendment reads, “Militias are acceptable.” Being wholly ignorant of the doctrine of enumerated powers, liberals think this is enough to deny us our gun rights; for if the federal government, unrestrained by an enumeration, was empowered to legislate on all matters not put off limits by the Bill of Rights, and if the Second Amendment actually did read “militias are acceptable,” then the federal government would indeed have the authority to regulate our ownership of firearms.

A constitutional amendment that reads “militias are acceptable,” no more gives the federal government the authority to legislate against guns than it does the authority to tell me what color I may dye my hair, or what size carburetor I may put under my hood. If I had a right to buy guns before the “militias are acceptable” amendment was enacted, then I have a right to buy guns afterward.

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

Amend the Constitution. Because a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation, and the proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Your handle suits you well. You are most certainly blind.

 

[P@triot]

Amend the Constitution. Because a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation, and the proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Fine! Great! Go ahead and do that...

But until you do make that legal adjustment to our laws, shut the fuck up. Because you're not getting our guns. You have no legal grounds to stand on until you amend the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Uh, more people die by automobile accidents every year than they do by guns in three years. Where is your call to ban automobiles considering they have "endangered and ended the inalienable right to life"?!?

Clearly, you have an agenda based on an uneducated irrationality and not based on what actually protects "the inalienable right to life".

 

[BlindBoo]

Amend the Constitution. Because a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation, and the proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Fine! Great! Go ahead and do that...

But until you do make that legal adjustment to our laws, shut the fuck up. Because you're not getting our guns. You have no legal grounds to stand on until you amend the Constitution.

You do not have the power to take my 1st amendment rights away. What would you say if the SC decides sometime in the future that the Militia part was relevent to the rest of the sentence and that regulating all firarms was constitutional. No amendment would be necessary in that case would it?

 

[BlindBoo]

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Uh, more people die by automobile accidents every year than they do by guns in three years. Where is your call to ban automobiles considering they have "endangered and ended the inalienable right to life"?!?

Clearly, you have an agenda based on an uneducated irrationality and not based on what actually protects "the inalienable right to life".

If we were all driving our guns to work every day of the week we have more gun accidents than we do. Wait, people don't drive their guns to work do they? Nor do most people commite murder by car either.

I don't know if you have an agenda or not, and I really don't care, but your automobile equivocation is a silly argument, the kind you'd hear on Fox News or something.

 

[BlindBoo]

The weakest argument in the dumbocrat arsenal (and yet you're forced to come back with it again and again because you've got nothing else to combat a Constitutional right other than to attempt to pervert the words of said Constitutional right).

First of all, the reason they cited is not the least bit relevant. The fact is, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Game. Set. Match. stupid...

Second - the militia argument

We now come back to those words so loved by the gun grabbers, “well regulated militia.” Knocking down this silly little argument is vitally important because the gun grabbers’ notion that says the Second Amendment reads, in essence, “militias are acceptable” is simply and undeniably the only arrow in their quiver. Take that from them, and they are finished.

Liberals do not maintain that the Second Amendment says “We can take your guns.” They believe (or pretend to believe) that the Second Amendment reads, “Militias are acceptable.” Being wholly ignorant of the doctrine of enumerated powers, liberals think this is enough to deny us our gun rights; for if the federal government, unrestrained by an enumeration, was empowered to legislate on all matters not put off limits by the Bill of Rights, and if the Second Amendment actually did read “militias are acceptable,” then the federal government would indeed have the authority to regulate our ownership of firearms.

A constitutional amendment that reads “militias are acceptable,” no more gives the federal government the authority to legislate against guns than it does the authority to tell me what color I may dye my hair, or what size carburetor I may put under my hood. If I had a right to buy guns before the “militias are acceptable” amendment was enacted, then I have a right to buy guns afterward.

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

Amend the Constitution. Because a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation, and the proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Your handle suits you well. You are most certainly blind.

Booboo may have been blind but her nose always worked perfectly until the day she died. Kind of like the American People, easy to fool in the short term but eventually, they will smell out the truth.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

"""Again, who gives a fuck what the Founding Slave-Rapists thought?""




True, but I do like this quote from Thomas Jefferson which is etched into the wall of his memorial:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.""

 

[P@triot]

Amend the Constitution. Because a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation, and the proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Fine! Great! Go ahead and do that...

But until you do make that legal adjustment to our laws, shut the fuck up. Because you're not getting our guns. You have no legal grounds to stand on until you amend the Constitution.

You do not have the power to take my 1st amendment rights away. What would you say if the SC decides sometime in the future that the Militia part was relevent to the rest of the sentence and that regulating all firarms was constitutional. No amendment would be necessary in that case would it?

What? Your 1st Amendment "rights"? I'm sorry, the founders did not intend for you to have the "right" to speak out against other amendments/rights. You have zero 1st amendment rights when you intend to use them against the Constitution and the rule of law.

 

[P@triot]

Amend the Constitution. Because a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation, and the proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Fine! Great! Go ahead and do that...

But until you do make that legal adjustment to our laws, shut the fuck up. Because you're not getting our guns. You have no legal grounds to stand on until you amend the Constitution.

You do not have the power to take my 1st amendment rights away. What would you say if the SC decides sometime in the future that the Militia part was relevent to the rest of the sentence and that regulating all firarms was constitutional. No amendment would be necessary in that case would it?

And you do not have the power to take my 2nd amendment rights. Still, that does t stop you from popping off at the mouth about doing just that.

Isn't it interesting how your so defensive of "your" 1st amendment rights, but so willing to trample on others rights?!? Typical dumbocrat hypocrite....

 

[OKTexas]

the OP ignores that all the scotus members dont agree with him

Just proves how political SCOTUS has become, if they only used law to make a decision most all decisions would be unanimous, wouldn't they?

 

[P@triot]

Amend the Constitution. Because a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation, and the proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Fine! Great! Go ahead and do that...

But until you do make that legal adjustment to our laws, shut the fuck up. Because you're not getting our guns. You have no legal grounds to stand on until you amend the Constitution.

You do not have the power to take my 1st amendment rights away. What would you say if the SC decides sometime in the future that the Militia part was relevent to the rest of the sentence and that regulating all firarms was constitutional. No amendment would be necessary in that case would it?

No - not at all. Why is it your dumbocrats are so incapable of comprehending that laws are made by the legislative branch, while the SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch? The Constitution is the law. The SCOTUS does not have the power/authority to change it or "interpret" it.

What they do have the power/authority to do is rule on a law or issue as that law or issue applies to the U.S. Constitution. For instance, Mayor Bloomberg decides he's going to forbid New Yorkers from owning guns in their home. If challenged, the Supreme Court would have the power/authority to decide that is unconstitutional. Or, someone claims their "right to bear arms" includes owning nuclear warheads on their property. If challenged, the Supreme Court would have the power/authority to decide if that is Constitutional.

How many times must this be explained to dumbocrats? No where can the Supreme Court "interpret" and then change the Constitution. They can only rule on whether an issue/law falls within the bounds of the Constitution.

How sad that you people don't understand your own government. It was taught in every high school in America. Did ALL of you drop out of high school to smoke pot?

 

[P@triot]

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Uh, more people die by automobile accidents every year than they do by guns in three years. Where is your call to ban automobiles considering they have "endangered and ended the inalienable right to life"?!?

Clearly, you have an agenda based on an uneducated irrationality and not based on what actually protects "the inalienable right to life".

If we were all driving our guns to work every day of the week we have more gun accidents than we do. Wait, people don't drive their guns to work do they? Nor do most people commite murder by car either.

I don't know if you have an agenda or not, and I really don't care, but your automobile equivocation is a silly argument, the kind you'd hear on Fox News or something.

First of all, everyone I know does drive to work every day with their guns. So once again we see you speaking from a position of pure ignorance.

Second, who asked about ratio?!? You claim to be so damn concerned with the "unalienable right to life" - well nothing is impeding on that right more than automobiles. So I ask again, where is your outrage and call to ban automobiles?

Third, why do you and your dumbocrat pals support abortion if your so concerned with the "unalienable right to life"?!?

You're being exposed as both irrational and a hypocrite. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your positions and come up with something more consistent?

 

[OKTexas]

the whole reason the scotus exsists is to define the constitution in light of our laws.


you are one shitty American who doesnt know what they are talking about

Ya got that a bit backward didn't you, they are there to decide if laws conform to the Constitution.

 

[hazlnut]

Associate Justice Rottweiler is giving us a lesson in Constitutional Law. Oh boy!!

He's looking at the 2nd Amendment through keyhole. A very limited reading that disregards all case law, majority opinions, dissenting opinions, etc.

SCOTUS has already ruled on the constitutionality of gun restrictions and gun registrations.

It's all constitutional. Bans on certain military-style weapons has been found to be constitutional.

The Bill of Rights are the Constitution are what SCOTUS says they are. Do you understand the concept of Precedent?

When SCOTUS hands down a decision, then that becomes the 2nd Amendment as applied in law.