The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[rightwinger]

According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.

OK. Let's just ban handguns

 

[ding]

According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.

OK. Let's just ban handguns

I thought you said you didn't want to ban guns at all?

 

[Vandalshandle]

RW,
Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.

 

[ding]

RW,
Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.

Why should I give up? That makes no sense at all. I'm winning. Oh... you are telling your modern liberal amigo to give up. Sure, that makes total sense. Not only am I making him look foolish, he is giving me a platform to state the self evident truth that the 2nd Amendment was written as a last check against tyranny. That the people are the militia. That the people have the right to own and possess guns. That well regulated does not mean regulations. That well regulated means to be in proper working order. And that we won't need to rebel against our government because the mere act of an armed populace acts as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average. If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.

So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.

Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?

My goodness. One statistic. You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro. It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data. The bottom line is that American's are not violent. Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data. Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.

Blaming poverty is an excuse.

No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand.

The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level.

You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.

It sure sounds like an excuse, amigo. You are literally saying that because someone is poor they have a propensity to rape, assault or murder people? Get real. There are tons of crime statistic from the FBI and they all show the same thing. For every type of violent crime, blacks are skewing the numbers. If we remove that segment, then the per capita numbers drop significantly. I have a correlation for you... voting for Democrats leads to higher crime rates.

Sounds like an excuse because you haven't taken the time to figure things out.

You said because they're poor, they're more likely to rape and commit crime. I see it the other way.

I see certain types of personality, people with lower IQs, etc are more likely to be in poverty. People with mental problems are more likely to be in poverty. I've seen this at first hand and seen how mental problems prevent people being able to do well in their job simply because they'll rub the boss the wrong way all the time.

Also, I can point to areas of poverty having higher levels of crime etc.

You say blacks are skewing the numbers because you've taken a very small view of what there is. You've not presented a single statistic, let alone a comprehensive study of crime statistics, to tell me this. When I get time, possibly tomorrow, I'll try and show you what I found out about London.

Yeah, you have lots of correlations, they often mean nothing much. Hey, if only men voted, Trump would walk this election. If only women voted, Hillary would walk this election. Says what? Nothing much. You throw stats at something without understand the issues and you get nothing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.

There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

 

[Vandalshandle]

RW,
Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.

Why should I give up? That makes no sense at all. I'm winning. Oh... you are telling your modern liberal amigo to give up. Sure, that makes total sense. Not only am I making him look foolish, he is giving me a platform to state the self evident truth that the 2nd Amendment was written as a last check against tyranny.

It is already too late, in Texas. The military took control of all the state from El Paso to Lubbock, and confiscated all their weapons during Jade Helm. You never heard about it, because there is very little internet connection out there.

Be prepared. When Hillary is elected, your town may be next.....

 

[ding]

And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.

There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[ding]

Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average. If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.

So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.

Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?

My goodness. One statistic. You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro. It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data. The bottom line is that American's are not violent. Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data. Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.

Blaming poverty is an excuse.

No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand.

The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level.

You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.

It sure sounds like an excuse, amigo. You are literally saying that because someone is poor they have a propensity to rape, assault or murder people? Get real. There are tons of crime statistic from the FBI and they all show the same thing. For every type of violent crime, blacks are skewing the numbers. If we remove that segment, then the per capita numbers drop significantly. I have a correlation for you... voting for Democrats leads to higher crime rates.

Sounds like an excuse because you haven't taken the time to figure things out.

You said because they're poor, they're more likely to rape and commit crime. I see it the other way.

I see certain types of personality, people with lower IQs, etc are more likely to be in poverty. People with mental problems are more likely to be in poverty. I've seen this at first hand and seen how mental problems prevent people being able to do well in their job simply because they'll rub the boss the wrong way all the time.

Also, I can point to areas of poverty having higher levels of crime etc.

You say blacks are skewing the numbers because you've taken a very small view of what there is. You've not presented a single statistic, let alone a comprehensive study of crime statistics, to tell me this. When I get time, possibly tomorrow, I'll try and show you what I found out about London.

Yeah, you have lots of correlations, they often mean nothing much. Hey, if only men voted, Trump would walk this election. If only women voted, Hillary would walk this election. Says what? Nothing much. You throw stats at something without understand the issues and you get nothing.

There are poor in all ethnicity, amigo,

 

[ding]

RW,
Give up. Ding saw a Clint Eastwood movie when he was growing up, and it changed his life forever. He has been talking to empty chairs, and trying to outdraw himself in the mirror, ever since.

Why should I give up? That makes no sense at all. I'm winning. Oh... you are telling your modern liberal amigo to give up. Sure, that makes total sense. Not only am I making him look foolish, he is giving me a platform to state the self evident truth that the 2nd Amendment was written as a last check against tyranny.

It is already too late, in Texas. The military took control of all the state from El Paso to Lubbock, and confiscated all their weapons during Jade Helm. You never heard about it, because there is very little internet connection out there.

Be prepared. When Hillary is elected, your town may be next.....

You crack me up. It takes a special kind of troll to get under my skin. You ain't it. How does it feel when the tables get turned? Man, I need a smoke.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.

There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

I think that he has decided that I am going to take his gun away and impose communist genocide on the USA population because I would like the country to have universal background checks for all gun purchases.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?

My goodness. One statistic. You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro. It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data. The bottom line is that American's are not violent. Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data. Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.

Blaming poverty is an excuse.

No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand.

The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level.

You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.

It sure sounds like an excuse, amigo. You are literally saying that because someone is poor they have a propensity to rape, assault or murder people? Get real. There are tons of crime statistic from the FBI and they all show the same thing. For every type of violent crime, blacks are skewing the numbers. If we remove that segment, then the per capita numbers drop significantly. I have a correlation for you... voting for Democrats leads to higher crime rates.

Sounds like an excuse because you haven't taken the time to figure things out.

You said because they're poor, they're more likely to rape and commit crime. I see it the other way.

I see certain types of personality, people with lower IQs, etc are more likely to be in poverty. People with mental problems are more likely to be in poverty. I've seen this at first hand and seen how mental problems prevent people being able to do well in their job simply because they'll rub the boss the wrong way all the time.

Also, I can point to areas of poverty having higher levels of crime etc.

You say blacks are skewing the numbers because you've taken a very small view of what there is. You've not presented a single statistic, let alone a comprehensive study of crime statistics, to tell me this. When I get time, possibly tomorrow, I'll try and show you what I found out about London.

Yeah, you have lots of correlations, they often mean nothing much. Hey, if only men voted, Trump would walk this election. If only women voted, Hillary would walk this election. Says what? Nothing much. You throw stats at something without understand the issues and you get nothing.

There are poor in all ethnicity, amigo,

Okay, here's where I ask you to write in proper English, you could even try in Spanish, but what you just said makes no sense to me.

Do you mean "ethnicities"?

And then once you've got past the language barrier, what is the point of what you're saying? If you don't explain yourself, then this is pointless.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

I think that he has decided that I am going to take his gun away and impose communist genocide on the USA population because I would like the country to have universal background checks for all gun purchases.

I can see the logic there..... if I close my eyes hard enough and have a freaky dream.

 

[Spare_change]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.

British, perhaps??

Because that is EXACTLY what happened 250 years ago --- "minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people"

There does NOT have to be "consensus" ... you only have to choose a side.

 

[Spare_change]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

Seriously?

Let me guess ... you skipped your Government classes in Junior High, right?

You couldn't be more wrong .... well, you could, but you would have to write it in Russian.

 

[Spare_change]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

No one said it did, but that also works the other way too. Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the First Amendment will one find any reference to the First Amendment 'trumping' the Second Amendment, or authorizing the First Amendment to abridge the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms. One right does not trump another. Rights, are not given or granted they exist by simply being, and they impose nothing upon another. When the exercise of a right imposes upon another, one has exceeded the natural limitations of that right.

One amendment does not "trump" another amendment.

But, it is a safe observation that it is the Second Amendment that protects all the others.

 

[Spare_change]

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

I think that he has decided that I am going to take his gun away and impose communist genocide on the USA population because I would like the country to have universal background checks for all gun purchases.

Step 1 ....

 

[Skull Pilot]

The second amendment was a quaint idea at the time, but is no longer needed for national defense

Let the states handle gun rights





.

No. The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property

God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

 

[Skull Pilot]

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

...and just because North Korea has a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that they are going to use it, so we'll just let that pass without concern.

yes because we all know a semi auto and a nuclear bomb are exactly alike

I will admit that you are right. if I see you walk into a movie theater with a semi-automatic weapon and a 50 round drum, I am just paranoid enough to suspect that you might be up to no good.

Silly me.

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too