The power to ban firearms...?

[skookerasbil]

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

A car is not a protected right – owning a gun is. Therefore, your correlation is completely off.

Further, you cannot show where having such a requirement would have any positive effect whatsoever. You cannot limit a right simply because you want it limited. You need to show real safety advantages which you cannot.

I disagree. People have always had a right to travel. We never needed a license to travel. We once did it by horse. Then cars got invented. THEN....after cars were invented....the concept of a driver's license was invented.

Why? Because they saw that people were using a dangerous tool to travel.

Just like we have a right to self defense and "arms". But when "arms" because very dangerous....the government must regulate them.

Just like they did when they realized humanity's new mode of travel, the car, was dangerous.

s0n......since when did you turn into such a panty waist limpwrister?


wtf??!!

 

[jon_berzerk]

I think most people are fine with making things like Grenades/RPG/fully automatic weapons illegal for the general population. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. The conversation President Obama started was banning a type of semi-automatic RIFLE, which (to me at least) is totally unnecessary.

Rifles - as a whole group - account for maybe 300 homicides/year. AR-15's? Maybe 15 people/year. In a country of 300 MILLION people that is an extremely, extremely small number. The man is playing political games and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

You want to make an impact on gun violence? Start figuring out ways to help educate youngsters in the inner cities and make sure they complete high school and go to college. Now that is something I can stand behind.

Quit wasting your time dude on this AR-15 thing. It's a political talking point designed to get folks exactly like yourself all wound up. Don't be a dupe.

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

you dont need a license to own a car

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

A car is not a protected right – owning a gun is. Therefore, your correlation is completely off.

Further, you cannot show where having such a requirement would have any positive effect whatsoever. You cannot limit a right simply because you want it limited. You need to show real safety advantages which you cannot.

I disagree. People have always had a right to travel. We never needed a license to travel. We once did it by horse. Then cars got invented. THEN....after cars were invented....the concept of a driver's license was invented.

Why? Because they saw that people were using a dangerous tool to travel.

Just like we have a right to self defense and "arms". But when "arms" because very dangerous....the government must regulate them.

You're just a big pile of fail.

-Arms have always been very dangerous
-You have no right to drive a car on public roads
-You do not need a license to buy/own a car, keep it in your home or use it on private property

So, when were you going to attempt to answer the question posed in the OP?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

In your trunk? Why not?...OK just kidding.
As with any right, we recognize rights are not absolute. For example the 'fire in a crowded movie theater' when no fire exists. Yes, that is free speech but it is outrageous to the public.
Government has the duty and by Constitutional word, the authority to 'promote the general welfare'...That in and of itself the ability to regulate.

The real test of these stupid remarks is the following:

Would a Jury of your peers unanimously convict you for "Yelling 'fire' in a theater" or defend your "right to free speech?" Obviously, the Jury would convict you, because that does not fall under free speech, and the People, via the Jury, have decided that.

The same thing applies to hand grenades. If someone was being tried for driving with explosives on the highway, would a Jury acquit them under the 2nd Amendment? Or would the Jury convict him, because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to such a scenario (and thus the law is constitutional). You can bet your ass the Jury would convict in this scenario as well.

As Thomas Jefferson said:​

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Is there an echo in here?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

you dont need a license to own a car

Technically, you don't. Lets say for tax purposes a parent 'gifts', and automobile to a child. The child 'may' be registered as an 'owner'.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Setting aside for a moment that you know you cannot answer the question posed in the OP and so have been forced to try to change the subject...

How are they "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment?

How are they not? They are weapons. When the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn't exist.

So, when I was given the right to bear arms in the 1700's, did that mean the right to bear ANY weapon that may be invented in the future?

Or, can the government step in and infringe on my right to bear weapons once a weapon is invented that the government doesn't want me to have?

THAT is a question you simply wont answer.

We as a people need to decide these questions. The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so.

Personally, I think we're all better off and safer if citizens can own semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Probably wouldn't be comfortable with a store selling grenade launchers, however. I personally would draw the line there. But we should leave all semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and pistols alone.

This term "living document' was invented by those who see the world in shades of grey.
They essentially convinced themselves they should be able to interpret the Constitution in any way they wished based on what they wanted to do.
Let's clear this up right now. The answer is 'no'...The US Constitution is what it is.
The Framers wrote it and amended it before it was ratified. The only way the US Constitution can be changed is by a convention, legislative action in Washington, then approval by 38 State's Legislatures. Only then can there be any Amendment.

 

[The T]

How are they not? They are weapons. When the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn't exist.

So, when I was given the right to bear arms in the 1700's, did that mean the right to bear ANY weapon that may be invented in the future?

Or, can the government step in and infringe on my right to bear weapons once a weapon is invented that the government doesn't want me to have?

THAT is a question you simply wont answer.

We as a people need to decide these questions. The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so.

Personally, I think we're all better off and safer if citizens can own semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Probably wouldn't be comfortable with a store selling grenade launchers, however. I personally would draw the line there. But we should leave all semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and pistols alone.

This term "living document' was invented by those who see the world in shades of grey.
They essentially convinced themselves they should be able to interpret the Constitution in any way they wished based on what they wanted to do.
Let's clear this up right now. The answer is 'no'...The US Constitution is what it is.
The Framers wrote it and amended it before it was ratified. The only way the US Constitution can be changed is by a convention, legislative action in Washington, then approval by 38 State's Legislatures. Only then can there be any Amendment.

True. And making laws to circumvent an amendment are invalid, unlawful. The Constitution is an 'Black and White' document.

 

[Erand7899]

I think most people are fine with making things like Grenades/RPG/fully automatic weapons illegal for the general population. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. The conversation President Obama started was banning a type of semi-automatic RIFLE, which (to me at least) is totally unnecessary.

Rifles - as a whole group - account for maybe 300 homicides/year. AR-15's? Maybe 15 people/year. In a country of 300 MILLION people that is an extremely, extremely small number. The man is playing political games and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

You want to make an impact on gun violence? Start figuring out ways to help educate youngsters in the inner cities and make sure they complete high school and go to college. Now that is something I can stand behind.

Quit wasting your time dude on this AR-15 thing. It's a political talking point designed to get folks exactly like yourself all wound up. Don't be a dupe.

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

If you have ever been in a redneck bar, hole in the wall, or any other dive, you should know that most of the people in there are packing, and that includes the women. The idea that gun laws stop people from packing, is just as ridiculus as the idea that prohibition stopped people from drinking.

Sane people don't pull out a gun and start shooting unless there is a damn good reason. In my lifetime, I have been in a lot of these places, around the country, and even though I don't carry a gun, I have never felt in danger from those who do, drunk or sober.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

you dont need a license to own a car

He's just desperate to call gun owners hypocrites and poke holes in the second. His argument lacks any substance that is required to even proffer an argument.

 

[Erand7899]

Setting aside for a moment that you know you cannot answer the question posed in the OP and so have been forced to try to change the subject...

How are they "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment?

How are they not? They are weapons. When the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn't exist.

So, when I was given the right to bear arms in the 1700's, did that mean the right to bear ANY weapon that may be invented in the future?

Or, can the government step in and infringe on my right to bear weapons once a weapon is invented that the government doesn't want me to have?

THAT is a question you simply wont answer.

We as a people need to decide these questions. The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so.

Personally, I think we're all better off and safer if citizens can own semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Probably wouldn't be comfortable with a store selling grenade launchers, however. I personally would draw the line there. But we should leave all semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and pistols alone.

If the Constitution is a living document, then it is nothing more than a guide. That means that our entire experiment with government by the people, for the people, and of the people, is at the whim of nine unelected assholes in black robes.

Law is only law when it can be relied upon to be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. That applies double to the Constitution. There is a proper way to update the Constitution, and any other law, and that process needs to be followed religiously. I am not willing to leave the future of the United States of America to a five person majority of appointed lawyers.

Pistols, rifles, RPGs, hand grenades, and cannons, are no better, or worse, than the people who have possession of them. A citizen who is no danger with a single shot musket, does not become dangerous because he has possession of a hand grenade.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We as a people need to decide these questions.

And we do, with a 3/4 vote of the states, after Congress (or a Constitutional Convention) proposes an amendment.

The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so.

No, it is an ENDURING document, meant to be left alone except when 2/3 of each house of Congress (or a ConCon) proposes and 3/4 of the states ratifies an amendment.

And when that heavy a majority does not exist, the Constitution is meant to be LEFT AS THE FRAMERS WROTE AND INTENDED IT, WITHOUT CHANGE.

 

[bucs90]

If the Founders were so great...........why didn't they ban slavery? Hmmmm.

 

[WinterBorn]

If the Founders were so great...........why didn't they ban slavery? Hmmmm.

If your argument is so strong, why do you dance away to this strawman? Hmmmm.

 

[tinydancer]

If the Founders were so great...........why didn't they ban slavery? Hmmmm.

What the fuck?

Get out of this thread that I have now walked into. You are talking stupid shit.

 

[tinydancer]

Now right or wrong. If a felon aka asshole wants to kill someone while I'm standing by, I know I will and no kidding about it jump into the fray and try to kill the perpetrator. If there are others in the room it would just make it easier.

 

[MikeK]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

It is a clear example of the presumptive power of government over and above the Constitution and upheld by the support of a substantial percentage of our increasingly submissive population -- the anti-gun voters. It essentially is the same situation that enables the rigid prohibition against possessing or making use of a natural plant -- cannabis.

Presumptive power bypasses the Constitution and common sense and is supported by the stupidity and submissive nature of a large number of brainwashed American citizens.

 

[MikeK]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

Neither of which are firearms, go figure.

No, but they are "arms". In the state of SC, a firearm is defined as "any object which hurls a projectile via an explosion". So, gunpowder hurling a hollow point, or, an explosive hurling grenade fragments or an RPG.

All are "arms".

Which "arms" can the government infringe upon me owning?

Whichever they can get away with infringing upon -- which they can do only with the support of a lot of voters who disagree with you and the Constitution.

 

[natstew]

Should I be able to have an RPG and hand grenades in my truck?

Yes or no.

Its really that simple.

"SHOULD" has got nothing to do with it, MofuckingRON

Until the Second Amendment is Amended I can Constitutionally drive around with a bazooka in my truck if I choose!

What do you gun control nuts have against the Constitution? Read Article V and use it!!

 

[natstew]

How are they not? They are weapons. When the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn't exist.

So, when I was given the right to bear arms in the 1700's, did that mean the right to bear ANY weapon that may be invented in the future?

Or, can the government step in and infringe on my right to bear weapons once a weapon is invented that the government doesn't want me to have?

THAT is a question you simply wont answer.

We as a people need to decide these questions. The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so.

Personally, I think we're all better off and safer if citizens can own semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Probably wouldn't be comfortable with a store selling grenade launchers, however. I personally would draw the line there. But we should leave all semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and pistols alone.

This term "living document' was invented by those who see the world in shades of grey.
They essentially convinced themselves they should be able to interpret the Constitution in any way they wished based on what they wanted to do.
Let's clear this up right now. The answer is 'no'...The US Constitution is what it is.
The Framers wrote it and amended it before it was ratified. The only way the US Constitution can be changed is by a convention, legislative action in Washington, then approval by 38 State's Legislatures. Only then can there be any Amendment.

No! no! no!, Read Article V. Doesn't take a convention to amend the Constitution. The Constitution has been amended 15 times since it was ratified. The 15 added to the first 10 that were included to get the Constitution ratified make the total 25 Amendments. The last 15 were done without a Constitutional Convention using the first part of the first sentence in Art. V. I have wondered why they didn't use two sentences, but they didn't have my English Teacher.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or," (not and. OR means either procedure can be used)

The First, and only, Constitutional Convention was in session when the first Ten were passed.
That's why they were called the "Bill Of Rights".

The Constitution is not a "Living Document" BTW. That is more Liberal/Progressive propaganda.

Quote - "The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so." - Quote
I don't know where you got this, but it surely didn't come from the Framers of the Constitution! Maybe started by the Woodrow Wilson Regime.

 

[natstew]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

It is a clear example of the presumptive power of government over and above the Constitution and upheld by the support of a substantial percentage of our increasingly submissive population -- the anti-gun voters. It essentially is the same situation that enables the rigid prohibition against possessing or making use of a natural plant -- cannabis.

Presumptive power bypasses the Constitution and common sense and is supported by the stupidity and submissive nature of a large number of brainwashed American citizens.

Most Liberal voters don't even know what the Constitution is, much less care, and thanks to our government indoctrination Centers the number of brainwashed is rapidly growing.