The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Rustic]

Thank God this man has the right to keep and bear arms (despite Duhhh-ryl’s deepest desire to strip him of that right)...

Crooks break into home, beat owner with metal pipe. But victim grabs his gun — and the tables turn.

He has a right to have a gun. But he doesn't have the right to carry it into our schools, movie theaters and public gatherings. He needs to check it the door or leave it home. You need to check it at the nearest police department and check into the nearest insane asylum.

Sounds very Orwellian of you

So you are against taking the guns away from the mentally ill. I guess the Mentally ill would be against that.

Anti gun nutters like yourself will never understand the second amendment

 

[BULLDOG]

I didn’t read the article I read the source file that it was written from... didn’t see mention of that. What of the Uzi and other auto that was purchased?

Well I’m going to assume that you just got confused by the GAO report and are not attempting to intentionally twist the facts of the report.

In the 72 attempts that law enforcement failed to make a single purchase, they were attempting to purchase under the guise that they were prohibited from owning firearms.

But in the two instances you are referring to (where they were able to purchase an Uzi and an AR-15), they didn’t disclose any information about their legal status either way.

Agents made seven attempts to purchase firearms on the Dark Web. In these attempts, agents did not disclose any information about whether they were prohibited from possessing a firearm. Of these seven attempts, two on a Dark Web marketplace were successful. Specifically, GAO agents purchased and received an AR-15 rifle and an Uzi that the seller said was modified so that it would fire automatically.

In other words - two completely different approaches. When they admitted to the sellers that they were prohibited from owning firearms, they were 0-72. When they didn’t indicate either way, they were 2-7.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf

So I guess the logical question would be how many people who are prohibited to purchase firearms do you think disclose that when trying to purchase a firearm. And for those that don’t disclose that then they have 2 of 7 or a 30%ish percent change of getting a weapon? Although 7 is nowhere close to a adequate sample size

they had to go on the Dark Web to get those guns moron.......the regular internet was a complete failure.....

No they didn't. They could have just as easily gone to an individual seller and bought the guns. No need to even ask if they were prohibited to own guns. I'll bet their success rate would have been much higher.

But you don't know it. We do know this.

Yes, I do know they could have easily bought all they wanted from individual sellers without supplying any information.

 

[2aguy]

Well I’m going to assume that you just got confused by the GAO report and are not attempting to intentionally twist the facts of the report.

In the 72 attempts that law enforcement failed to make a single purchase, they were attempting to purchase under the guise that they were prohibited from owning firearms.

But in the two instances you are referring to (where they were able to purchase an Uzi and an AR-15), they didn’t disclose any information about their legal status either way.
In other words - two completely different approaches. When they admitted to the sellers that they were prohibited from owning firearms, they were 0-72. When they didn’t indicate either way, they were 2-7.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf

So I guess the logical question would be how many people who are prohibited to purchase firearms do you think disclose that when trying to purchase a firearm. And for those that don’t disclose that then they have 2 of 7 or a 30%ish percent change of getting a weapon? Although 7 is nowhere close to a adequate sample size

they had to go on the Dark Web to get those guns moron.......the regular internet was a complete failure.....

No they didn't. They could have just as easily gone to an individual seller and bought the guns. No need to even ask if they were prohibited to own guns. I'll bet their success rate would have been much higher.

But you don't know it. We do know this.

Yes, I do know they could have easily bought all they wanted from individual sellers without supplying any information.

sorry.....they don't....you say they could, yet they never do.......

Criminals buy guns from friends and family and other criminal they know.....for fear of being caught by cops or the feds.....you have no idea what you are talking about. And mass shooters, can pass current background checks so will pass any other background checks you create......

 

[BULLDOG]

So I guess the logical question would be how many people who are prohibited to purchase firearms do you think disclose that when trying to purchase a firearm. And for those that don’t disclose that then they have 2 of 7 or a 30%ish percent change of getting a weapon? Although 7 is nowhere close to a adequate sample size

they had to go on the Dark Web to get those guns moron.......the regular internet was a complete failure.....

No they didn't. They could have just as easily gone to an individual seller and bought the guns. No need to even ask if they were prohibited to own guns. I'll bet their success rate would have been much higher.

But you don't know it. We do know this.

Yes, I do know they could have easily bought all they wanted from individual sellers without supplying any information.

sorry.....they don't....you say they could, yet they never do.......

Criminals buy guns from friends and family and other criminal they know.....for fear of being caught by cops or the feds.....you have no idea what you are talking about. And mass shooters, can pass current background checks so will pass any other background checks you create......

So what keeps them from buying from an individual seller? There is no more requirement for a background check than there is when they buy from family or other criminals. It just gives them a wider range of places to acquire a gun.

 

[Contumacious]

The degree of professionalism that the cops exibited was beyond and above reproach.

So this is now the second time you are admitting that you egregiously lied in post #498. Law enforcement did not experience “mayhem” and “cluster f” because of armed citizens, as you tried to claim. You are now admitting they were “above reproach” in their “degree of professionalism”.

The crowd was mayhem especially with the civvies and nutcases drawing weapons. The Cops kept order, not your morons. You people are dangerous.

That’s not what you said, snowflake. You claimed the armed citizens caused problems for law enforcement. After I called you on your shit, you attempted to save face by changing your story. That just made things worse for you.

You are wrong. Armed citizens due cause problems for law enforcement

Here is a picture of Jews at the Warsaw Ghetto

Those women and children were incinerated because they had no AR15's to protect them against the Gestapo.

.NEVER AGAIN

.

This is the US. Not any place else. You keep bringing up places that my family gave it's life to fight against. We don't have those problems here. We are adopting common sense gun regulations in spite of you.

So, Baby Killer, keep going. We will work to prevent mass killings in our schools, minimize the body counts, improve our Police Departments by making them ore professional and get the guns out of the mentally ill peoples hands. BTW, the last group includes you as well. We will do this in spite of you.

Common Sense Gun regulations?


.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry.....that's not how it worked.......the regular internet was a failure.......and criminals do not go to individual sellers who are not known to them, they just don't do it, because they are afraid of undercover police officers......

Amazing how often good guys with a gun end up doing really stupid and dangerous stuff, isn't it?
View attachment 175107

And yet cars and alcohol are items used far more often for stupid and dangerous stuff....and 16 year olds are allowed to drive these killing machines and they easily get alcohol......

Yet cars have so many more necessary uses than guns which are only made to kill. You're trying to compare guns to alcohol? How often do you see an small child killed because his mother dropped her alcohol out of her purse, and it went off?

We do see small children killed because Mom drove drunk, or Mom passed out and they started a fire...

Or Mom just beats them or drowns them or Dad leaves them in a hot car to die

Parents kill more kids every year than any wack job piece of shit gunman

So if control freak anti second amendment people want to ban a rifle to save children then wouldn't it be even more effective to ban parents?

The most dangerous situation for a child....living in a home with a single, teenage girl for a mother who has a live in boyfriend who is not the father of the child....

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Saclia had one opinion, that expressed in the Heller Decision; Chief Justice John Marshall another.

 

[2aguy]

they had to go on the Dark Web to get those guns moron.......the regular internet was a complete failure.....

No they didn't. They could have just as easily gone to an individual seller and bought the guns. No need to even ask if they were prohibited to own guns. I'll bet their success rate would have been much higher.

But you don't know it. We do know this.

Yes, I do know they could have easily bought all they wanted from individual sellers without supplying any information.

sorry.....they don't....you say they could, yet they never do.......

Criminals buy guns from friends and family and other criminal they know.....for fear of being caught by cops or the feds.....you have no idea what you are talking about. And mass shooters, can pass current background checks so will pass any other background checks you create......

So what keeps them from buying from an individual seller? There is no more requirement for a background check than there is when they buy from family or other criminals. It just gives them a wider range of places to acquire a gun.

I told you what keeps them from buying from an individual seller, they don't know them......they are afraid it might be a cop or a fed......doing a gun sting.

We can already arrest the felon when we catch them with the gun....we are doing this all the time...the problem is that prosecutors, and judges keep letting these guys back out after they are caught...

Here...learn something...

In Opinion: Gun control—where do criminals get their weapons?

But while a majority of owners obtain their guns in transactions that are documented and for the most part legal, the same is not true for criminals.

A transaction can be illegal for several reasons, but of particular interest are transactions that involve disqualified individuals—those banned from purchase or possession due to criminal record, age, adjudicated mental illness, illegal alien status or some other reason.

Convicted felons, teenagers and other people who are legally barred from possession would ordinarily be blocked from purchasing a gun from a gun store, because they would fail the background check or lack the permit or license required by some states.

Anyone providing the gun in such transactions would be culpable if they had reason to know that the buyer was disqualified, if they were acting as a straw purchaser or if they violated state regulations pertaining to such private transactions.

The importance of the informal (undocumented) market in supplying criminals is suggested by the results of inmate surveys and data gleaned from guns confiscated by the police.

A national survey of inmates of state prisons found that just 10 percent of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members.

Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtainedthem by direct purchase from a store.

(This essentially means they did not personally buy the gun...they used a straw buyer who buys the gun legally....)

To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified.

The supply chain of guns to crime

While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer—including the guns thateventually end up in the hands of criminals.

That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions.

The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years.

The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion.

In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.

And here is the key....the smart criminals don't trust private sales with an unknown seller genius.....

All in the family

So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, themost likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member.

Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship.

Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

---------------------

 

[2aguy]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

This has been shown to be stupid over and over again....Scalia goes through the wording of the 2nd Amendment in Heller, in great detail, citing actual legal precedent when he does it....you are such a lying doofus...

 

[2aguy]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Saclia had one opinion, that expressed in the Heller Decision; Chief Justice John Marshall another.

Moron....the idiot in your link doesn't realize that the phrasing of that Amendment was common to all sorts of legal codes.....and state constitutions at the time......you are such a moron...

 

[Contumacious]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Saclia had one opinion, that expressed in the Heller Decision; Chief Justice John Marshall another.

Very interrresting

So we are FREE PEOPLE with the RIGHT TO LIFE but we don't have a right to defend it.

Sad.



Stupid motherfucker moron

Either the free market provide firearms and ammunitions or we will buy them in the black market.

There is NOTHING that you and your ilk can do. NOTHING


,

 

[2aguy]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Saclia had one opinion, that expressed in the Heller Decision; Chief Justice John Marshall another.

Moron....he quotes a tiny phrase used by Marshall...and you think that means anything, he wasn't even referring to the 2nd Amendment when he stated

However, no less a constitutional authority than Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall disagrees, declaring that “it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”

that Statement has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment.....and the doofus in your link puts it in there, while Scalia breaks down the 2nd Amendment wtih examples and legal Precedent.....you are such a doofus...

This is just the introduction to Heller....Scalia goes on in great, minute, detail about the wording of the 2nd Amendment..

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

Now....going into it deeper...Look at Scalia, and then tell me that tiny statement from Marshall has any bearing on the 2nd Amendment argument....

II

We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment. A The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).


Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.”

That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.”

The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’” J. Bishop,

Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4 1.

Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.”

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”).

Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.


As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by theFourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”


This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause.

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”


We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

I would go on, but If you have any intelligence you would see that the author of your link has no idea what they are talking about...

 

[P@triot]

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

I suggest you simply learn to read, Guy Catcher...

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

You’re gun rights are guaranteed and unlimited. It could not be more black and white (unless one is an illiterate progressive).

 

[P@triot]

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

I would go on, but If you have any intelligence you would see that the author of your link has no idea what they are talking about...

1. I can absolutely assure you that Guy Catcher has no intelligence

2. He provides “essays” written by idiot progressives for his arguments

3. Like all facists, he’s irate that he doesn’t get to control you or your choices

 

[boedicca]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

Personal safety is not only the justification for the 2nd Amendment. An individual's right to own a gun is also to hold in check a tyrannical government.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

Personal safety is not only the justification for the 2nd Amendment. An individual's right to own a gun is also to hold in check a tyrannical government.

Oh, I agree. Personal Safety. And a tyrannical government.

When other's personal safety becomes a factor maybe that shouldalso be factroed in as well. When our rights jeapordise others rights then we need to modify our own rights.

Now about that tyranical government. If we have a system in place to prevent it then that part of the 2nd amendment really has no meaning. We, techincally, have a revolution every 2 and 4 years at the ballot box.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Saclia had one opinion, that expressed in the Heller Decision; Chief Justice John Marshall another.

Very interrresting

So we are FREE PEOPLE with the RIGHT TO LIFE but we don't have a right to defend it.

Sad.



Stupid motherfucker moron

Either the free market provide firearms and ammunitions or we will buy them in the black market.

There is NOTHING that you and your ilk can do. NOTHING


,

Oh so emotional, and so willing to be a felon. Better think before you act, since you haven't read and understood the link. Gun control is a common sense response to what has become a national disgrace. GUN CONTROL IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS, OR WILL BECOME.

 

[BULLDOG]

No they didn't. They could have just as easily gone to an individual seller and bought the guns. No need to even ask if they were prohibited to own guns. I'll bet their success rate would have been much higher.

But you don't know it. We do know this.

Yes, I do know they could have easily bought all they wanted from individual sellers without supplying any information.

sorry.....they don't....you say they could, yet they never do.......

Criminals buy guns from friends and family and other criminal they know.....for fear of being caught by cops or the feds.....you have no idea what you are talking about. And mass shooters, can pass current background checks so will pass any other background checks you create......

So what keeps them from buying from an individual seller? There is no more requirement for a background check than there is when they buy from family or other criminals. It just gives them a wider range of places to acquire a gun.

I told you what keeps them from buying from an individual seller, they don't know them......they are afraid it might be a cop or a fed......doing a gun sting.

We can already arrest the felon when we catch them with the gun....we are doing this all the time...the problem is that prosecutors, and judges keep letting these guys back out after they are caught...

Here...learn something...

In Opinion: Gun control—where do criminals get their weapons?

But while a majority of owners obtain their guns in transactions that are documented and for the most part legal, the same is not true for criminals.

A transaction can be illegal for several reasons, but of particular interest are transactions that involve disqualified individuals—those banned from purchase or possession due to criminal record, age, adjudicated mental illness, illegal alien status or some other reason.

Convicted felons, teenagers and other people who are legally barred from possession would ordinarily be blocked from purchasing a gun from a gun store, because they would fail the background check or lack the permit or license required by some states.

Anyone providing the gun in such transactions would be culpable if they had reason to know that the buyer was disqualified, if they were acting as a straw purchaser or if they violated state regulations pertaining to such private transactions.

The importance of the informal (undocumented) market in supplying criminals is suggested by the results of inmate surveys and data gleaned from guns confiscated by the police.

A national survey of inmates of state prisons found that just 10 percent of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members.

Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtainedthem by direct purchase from a store.

(This essentially means they did not personally buy the gun...they used a straw buyer who buys the gun legally....)

To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified.

The supply chain of guns to crime

While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer—including the guns thateventually end up in the hands of criminals.

That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions.

The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years.

The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion.

In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.

And here is the key....the smart criminals don't trust private sales with an unknown seller genius.....

All in the family

So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, themost likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member.

Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship.

Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

---------------------

Bullshit no matter how many times you post that crap.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.

P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Saclia had one opinion, that expressed in the Heller Decision; Chief Justice John Marshall another.

I can give you an expert who disagrees

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me. and he says

The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

 

[Wry Catcher]

I suggest you read this essay on the 2nd A.:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

I suggest you simply learn to read, Guy Catcher...

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

You’re gun rights are guaranteed and unlimited. It could not be more black and white (unless one is an illiterate progressive).

Most defenders of the 2nd A. who argue the point you claim is a guarantee and provides an unlimited right so obsessively may not know what a clause represents; thus they read what they want to hear. For some it is willful ignorance, for others a fear of cognitive dissonance and for most simply an echo of what they want to be true. From the link you didn't read, could not understand, or choose (or are incapable of) refuting here is the germane point made in the link I provided.

Read these sentences:

“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

The meme that every ARM is legal and any attempt to restrict a weapon of war from any citizen violates the Right to bare arms is foolish and only fools, liars and those who benefit from such meme make this claim.

Scalia chose to baffle us with bullshit when he wrote the majority opinion (5-4) in Heller.