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.
actually impossible to prevent with 400 million guns out there often in the hands of values free, atheist, liberal Americans. Bush 41 wanted a kinder, gentler, traditional, Republican, Christian America like the one he knew as a child. That is the only way to go back to a peaceful Donna Reed Republican culture and away from a Democratic Grand Theft Auto culture.It's just too easy to prevent.
Now, that would be a good start.
Time for reasonable gun control. Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
So what; all You have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.Irrelevant. We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.Our Second Amendment is not obsolete. We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is Always the answer.
If you weren't just a troll, I'd point out that "well-regulate" as used in the 1700's meant in good working order.
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
You are constantly misusing "appeal to ignorance."So what; all You have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.
Says who?Wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal
Congress.
I already said one thing that would slow down the legal aquisition of bulk Ammo. Now, let's move onto another factor. The rate of fire.
You will notice that only one style of semi auto is used in the mass killings and that is the AR-15 and copies. The problem here is that they are based on 600 to 700 rate of fire full autos. That means that when work arounds are found that they can still have a tremendous rate of fire. Even the US Army, Marines and Navy has reduced theirs to a 3 shot limit per trigger pull. The Air Force still uses the Fully Automatic version.
Now, you will notice something like the Remington 750 isn't the gun of choice. While it's a semi auto as well, it has a cyclic rate of about 200 rounds a minute. I think there is also an AR looking Rem 750 based weapon that looks similiar to an AR. But it's not the weapon of choice.
The fact that the AR-15 looks like the full auto M-16 really ins't the factor. It's they high rate of potential cyclic rate of fire it has makes it ideal for modification or work arounds for mass killings.
By Peter Weber
That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
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.
It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.
"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
So what; all You have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.Irrelevant. We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.Our Second Amendment is not obsolete. We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is Always the answer.
If you weren't just a troll, I'd point out that "well-regulate" as used in the 1700's meant in good working order.
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
Wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal
Congress.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Says our Constitution; only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless, for political purposes.You are constantly misusing "appeal to ignorance."So what; all You have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.
The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, or Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, is one where the proponent of an argument attempts to bolster the argument's veracity by pointing out that no evidence can be presented to the contrary.
Example: God exists because you cannot prove God does not exist.
Because of this fallacy, the scientific method demands that a theory be disprovable.
Now. Please, stop misusing that term.
Says who?Wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal
Congress.
Are you referring to the 2nd Amendment when you say this is required? Because, if you are, you again ignore the rules of construction and interpretation, which demand otherwise. The Amendment must be read in a fashion that gives meaning and effect to all words and phrases. You cannot place emphases on a "well-regulated militia" while ignoring the operative clause prohibiting infringement.
That's a great quote, and one can hardly doubt that Washington held those same convictions after reading his other writings on the individual right to bear arms. He would likely give his approval of that message....but he didn't say that. It was incorrectly attributed to him.George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
Once again, you fail to give the Constitution and all of its Amendments proper construction and interpretation, giving meaning to all words and phrases, and not reading it in a fashion that renders some words or phrases meaningless.Says our Constitution; only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless, for political purposes.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
That's a great quote, and one can hardly doubt that Washington held those same convictions after reading his other writings on the individual right to bear arms. He would likely give his approval of that message....but he didn't say that. It was incorrectly attributed to him.George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
That came from a 1926 article written by C.S. Wheatley and published in Hunter-Trader-Trapper. Wheatley cited Washington's State of The Union Address, where Washington said:
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."
That statement, nonetheless, demonstrates Washington's belief that citizens should be independently armed with equal firepower to that of a standing army. Washington. like James Madison, but unlike Jefferson and other Anti-Federalists, supported a standing army. Yet he and every other Founding Father to comment on a standing army recognized its potential instrumentality for tyranny.
I Washington's actual quote, the word "disciplined" as used there, means "taught" or given instruction. He wanted the people to design and manufacture their firearms, for military use. In telling Congress this, Washington is signaling to Congress that the people should remain armed, but that he eventually wants a standing army. See the paragraphs above and below that paragraph:
___
"Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard.— To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.—
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
"The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration.— In the arrangements, which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy."
__
Bootney's translation:
If we want to avoid war, we need to look like we are ready for war.
Not to take away from our current militia system. Free people should be armed and taught how to fight. Their safety requires that they should be able to independently manufacture their own military-grade weapons and supplies.
But, we should start to consider raising a standing army and paying officers to maintain it.
But, I digress...
nope; that is just right wing legal fantasy;Once again, you fail to give the Constitution and all of its Amendments proper construction and interpretation, giving meaning to all words and phrases, and not reading it in a fashion that renders some words or phrases meaningless.Says our Constitution; only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless, for political purposes.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Remember, you said this:anope; that is just right wing legal fantasy;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
After you said this:Wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
Further, you said this:Irrelevant. We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.
Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is Always the answer.
You are trying to give meaning to the "well-regulated" phrase of the 2nd Amendment in a fashion that renders the "right...shall not be infringed" meaningless.Our Second Amendment is not obsolete. We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia
Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
By Peter Weber
That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
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.
It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.
"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
The Supreme Court already ruled on this. Your articles mean nothing, or as much as your opinion on the issue
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of the manner of organization of a militia.Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
By Peter Weber
That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
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.
It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.
"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
The Supreme Court already ruled on this. Your articles mean nothing, or as much as your opinion on the issue
The ruling was, and I paraphrase:
In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.Jun 26, 2015
SCOTUS can only rule using the 1934 Firearms law which is, and again I paraphrase:
National Firearms Act of 1934. The first attempt at federal gun-control legislation, the National Firearms Act (NFA) only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns.
The last ruling was not about the hand guns, it was about the rifles and shotguns. And it upheld the right to own those same handguns. But it also upheld the right to regulate their carrying on the street requiring a CCW or some type of permit.
While the State does not have the right to ban and confiscate those arms, it does have the right to regulate them. The Federal Government does not.
Only in right wing fantasy.The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of the manner of organization of a militia.Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
The word "people" does not mean "militia" nor the reverse. The right is not the militia's. It's the right of the people. The Heller Court made it abundantly clear that it is not a collective right, but an individual right.The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
