Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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.
Abortion is legalized murder. Gun ownership is not.Amen. Just like abortion is none of your business. Right?Firearm ownership is none the of the federal governments business, Just like other people’s firearm ownership is none of your business
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
He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
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
He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
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
He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Who is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?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
He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Who is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?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
He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
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.
Who is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Very few Americans believe prohibition of guns in the civilian population is the ultimate goal of gun control advocates; most Americans understand that prohibitions don't work. Most of those obsessed with preventing any form of gun control use the slippery slope argument.
Stated above, "That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm" strikes me as naive, given human nature and the daily cost in blood and treasure guns create.
The NRA, those who profit from gun sales, and its supporters enable the illegal use of firearms. Since we cannot predict who is and will remain a law abiding citizen, we need to control guns.
That does not mean I would support the confiscation of the guns already in the public domain, notwithstanding what others may allege. I've detailed my opinion ad nausea, and it includes Licensing and Registration legally established by State Governments when the People support such legislation.
Who is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Very few Americans believe prohibition of guns in the civilian population is the ultimate goal of gun control advocates; most Americans understand that prohibitions don't work. Most of those obsessed with preventing any form of gun control use the slippery slope argument.
Stated above, "That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm" strikes me as naive, given human nature and the daily cost in blood and treasure guns create.
The NRA, those who profit from gun sales, and its supporters enable the illegal use of firearms. Since we cannot predict who is and will remain a law abiding citizen, we need to control guns.
That does not mean I would support the confiscation of the guns already in the public domain, notwithstanding what others may allege. I've detailed my opinion ad nausea, and it includes Licensing and Registration legally established by State Governments when the People support such legislation.
Anyone calling for a gun banWho is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?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
He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Who is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Very few Americans believe prohibition of guns in the civilian population is the ultimate goal of gun control advocates; most Americans understand that prohibitions don't work. Most of those obsessed with preventing any form of gun control use the slippery slope argument.
Stated above, "That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm" strikes me as naive, given human nature and the daily cost in blood and treasure guns create.
The NRA, those who profit from gun sales, and its supporters enable the illegal use of firearms. Since we cannot predict who is and will remain a law abiding citizen, we need to control guns.
That does not mean I would support the confiscation of the guns already in the public domain, notwithstanding what others may allege. I've detailed my opinion ad nausea, and it includes Licensing and Registration legally established by State Governments when the People support such legislation.
Anyone calling for a gun banWho is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Don't kid yourself and think that the only rifle the extremists want banned is the so called assault rifle
Even morons with thicker skulls than the gun grabbers will eventually realize that the so called assault rifle is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle and the call will go out to ban all semiautomatic weapons including handguns
Did you ever ask yourself why these extremist control freaks want to ban the single most popular rifle in the country?
Hint
It's not because it is used in murders
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.
Fighting the imaginary ghost I see. It’s all about what people are going to say, not actually about what they are saying. Not a convincing arguement IMOAnyone calling for a gun banWho is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
- Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
- Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Don't kid yourself and think that the only rifle the extremists want banned is the so called assault rifle
Even morons with thicker skulls than the gun grabbers will eventually realize that the so called assault rifle is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle and the call will go out to ban all semiautomatic weapons including handguns
Did you ever ask yourself why these extremist control freaks want to ban the single most popular rifle in the country?
Hint
It's not because it is used in murders
Anyone calling for a gun banWho is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?It was explained in the body of the link
And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.
No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights
Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Don't kid yourself and think that the only rifle the extremists want banned is the so called assault rifle
Even morons with thicker skulls than the gun grabbers will eventually realize that the so called assault rifle is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle and the call will go out to ban all semiautomatic weapons including handguns
Did you ever ask yourself why these extremist control freaks want to ban the single most popular rifle in the country?
Hint
It's not because it is used in murders
Most homes don't own an AR of any kind. The homes that do own an AR own multiple ARs. You can scream BS all you want to that but you can't change facts. I don't know of a single AR owner in in my entire neighborhood but most have at least one gun be it a handgun, shotgun or hunting rifle. Most only own two of those three. And it's not always a handgun and another type.
The AR owners I know are a bit on the ultra right wing side of things and almost all sing the same tune of , "They are trying to take all my guns" song and own more than 3 ARs among other types. They are ready for that ARmed Revolution that never comes. Some of us are armed to prevent the gun nutz from bring the Revolution to our door steps. If you aren't worried that your gun nutzoid neighbor might go off one of these days and start the Revolution then you should be. He's been preparing for iit for a very long time.
But we can't go and force them to get a Shrink Test. Man, Oh Man, would that cause an uproar about their 1st amendment rights. Or we can't allow law enforcement to start watching them closely. They are Right Wingers. Can't have that. When these folks go off the reservation, it's really, really bad and they do it with all their buddies. And they all claim to be protected by the the 2nd amendment. Yet, they scream and holler wanting the checks and balances for the left wingers who own guns.
Newsflash: The flash points of both sides really aren't left or right wingers at all. They are both just nut jobs. And should be treated as such. Allow your Law Enforcement the tools to do their jobs. But you Rightwinger don't want that to happen. It will not only get rid of some of the Left Winger Nutjobs but it will also get rid of some of the Right Winger Nutcases and you can't have that. So you just make sure you scream the loudest about how dangerous the left is.
Anyone calling for a gun banWho is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.
No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Don't kid yourself and think that the only rifle the extremists want banned is the so called assault rifle
Even morons with thicker skulls than the gun grabbers will eventually realize that the so called assault rifle is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle and the call will go out to ban all semiautomatic weapons including handguns
Did you ever ask yourself why these extremist control freaks want to ban the single most popular rifle in the country?
Hint
It's not because it is used in murders
Most homes don't own an AR of any kind. The homes that do own an AR own multiple ARs. You can scream BS all you want to that but you can't change facts. I don't know of a single AR owner in in my entire neighborhood but most have at least one gun be it a handgun, shotgun or hunting rifle. Most only own two of those three. And it's not always a handgun and another type.
The AR owners I know are a bit on the ultra right wing side of things and almost all sing the same tune of , "They are trying to take all my guns" song and own more than 3 ARs among other types. They are ready for that ARmed Revolution that never comes. Some of us are armed to prevent the gun nutz from bring the Revolution to our door steps. If you aren't worried that your gun nutzoid neighbor might go off one of these days and start the Revolution then you should be. He's been preparing for iit for a very long time.
But we can't go and force them to get a Shrink Test. Man, Oh Man, would that cause an uproar about their 1st amendment rights. Or we can't allow law enforcement to start watching them closely. They are Right Wingers. Can't have that. When these folks go off the reservation, it's really, really bad and they do it with all their buddies. And they all claim to be protected by the the 2nd amendment. Yet, they scream and holler wanting the checks and balances for the left wingers who own guns.
Newsflash: The flash points of both sides really aren't left or right wingers at all. They are both just nut jobs. And should be treated as such. Allow your Law Enforcement the tools to do their jobs. But you Rightwinger don't want that to happen. It will not only get rid of some of the Left Winger Nutjobs but it will also get rid of some of the Right Winger Nutcases and you can't have that. So you just make sure you scream the loudest about how dangerous the left is.
Once again you illustrate that you don't know shit about firearms.
Do any of those homes have in them a .223 or 5.56 caliber semiautomatic rifle?
If they do they then have a rifle that is equivalent to an AR 15 in caliber and performance the only appreciable difference is solely cosmetic.
And don't pretend that the banning of the AR 15 would not lead to the call for banning other semiautomatic rifles
Anyone calling for a gun banWho is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"
Please quote me where I did.
I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.
And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.
We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.
That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.
What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
Don't kid yourself and think that the only rifle the extremists want banned is the so called assault rifle
Even morons with thicker skulls than the gun grabbers will eventually realize that the so called assault rifle is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle and the call will go out to ban all semiautomatic weapons including handguns
Did you ever ask yourself why these extremist control freaks want to ban the single most popular rifle in the country?
Hint
It's not because it is used in murders
Most homes don't own an AR of any kind. The homes that do own an AR own multiple ARs. You can scream BS all you want to that but you can't change facts. I don't know of a single AR owner in in my entire neighborhood but most have at least one gun be it a handgun, shotgun or hunting rifle. Most only own two of those three. And it's not always a handgun and another type.
The AR owners I know are a bit on the ultra right wing side of things and almost all sing the same tune of , "They are trying to take all my guns" song and own more than 3 ARs among other types. They are ready for that ARmed Revolution that never comes. Some of us are armed to prevent the gun nutz from bring the Revolution to our door steps. If you aren't worried that your gun nutzoid neighbor might go off one of these days and start the Revolution then you should be. He's been preparing for iit for a very long time.
But we can't go and force them to get a Shrink Test. Man, Oh Man, would that cause an uproar about their 1st amendment rights. Or we can't allow law enforcement to start watching them closely. They are Right Wingers. Can't have that. When these folks go off the reservation, it's really, really bad and they do it with all their buddies. And they all claim to be protected by the the 2nd amendment. Yet, they scream and holler wanting the checks and balances for the left wingers who own guns.
Newsflash: The flash points of both sides really aren't left or right wingers at all. They are both just nut jobs. And should be treated as such. Allow your Law Enforcement the tools to do their jobs. But you Rightwinger don't want that to happen. It will not only get rid of some of the Left Winger Nutjobs but it will also get rid of some of the Right Winger Nutcases and you can't have that. So you just make sure you scream the loudest about how dangerous the left is.
Once again you illustrate that you don't know shit about firearms.
Do any of those homes have in them a .223 or 5.56 caliber semiautomatic rifle?
If they do they then have a rifle that is equivalent to an AR 15 in caliber and performance the only appreciable difference is solely cosmetic.
And don't pretend that the banning of the AR 15 would not lead to the call for banning other semiautomatic rifles
Do you support banning and making illegal magazines with more than 10 rounds, and quick release buttons for all semiauto guns, long and short?
If not, why not.
