The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers. Fallacy is all y'all have.

And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.

anybody can Talk. Men have arguments.

Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Indeed it is. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Who shall not be infringed upon? The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon? C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument". Make it. So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

 

[H B Lowrie]

If only the second read "the right to bear alms", this society might not be so petty, shitty, and hateful.

 

[Lesh]

Who cares what is mentioned about militias in the Constitution?

Well then you don't care about the 2A.

Whatever.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Wrong.
First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?

Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?

Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....

In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them. The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.

The Comanche were yet another story;

{Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book The Comanche Empire, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}

Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History

Wrong. That is totally made up. We know almost nothing about the Mayans, and they disappeared before anyone could write anything about them, and those who did later write about them were the biased Christian Conquistador missionaries, who have no credibility at all.
You just watched the movie, "Apocalypto" and believed it was true. But it was totally and completely made up, and made no sense at all. I enjoyed the movie, but there was nothing based on knowledge in it.

Again, what possible slavery could primitive hunter/gatherers use? The answer is none. The slaves would not only be sitting around all the time, but would actually waste additional effort to prevent them from escaping and needing to be fed. Any hunter/gather society would be far better off without slaves, so would not bother. When mates are ritually kidnapped from other tribes, that is not slavery, since they were adopted into the new tribe, as relative equals eventually. Kidnapping mates is good evolution because it reduced inbreeding.

Any tale of the Comanche would be pointless, because they had been totally displaced by the European invasion, and they then were a totally artificial reaction to extreme external stress. Native American cultures were totally altered by contact with Europeans, so are not useful to study AFTER contact. The Comanche were known as the Lords of the Southwest Great Plains, but the reality is that no one lived on the Great Plains originally, because the weather was too drastic. It was only after Europeans brought horses and had displaced natives from better places, that anyone lived on the Great Plains. In fact, some of the Great Plains tribes, like the Mandans, likely were created from lost European settlements.

I suspect you are confusing Mayan and Toltec. The Mayans are well known and documented.

Mayan history

As for the slavery practiced by the Cheyenne, you do grasp they were doing this into the late 19th century, right? The army had to deploy troops to protect the Cherokee from predation by the Cheyenne seeking slaves. The hunters were viewed as too important to engage in physical labor, so they took slaves.

The problem here is that you are extremely ignorant and simply make shit up to tell the story you wish had happened, rather than dealing with the facts of what did happen.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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

everything in the constitution is subject to interpretation.

even the 2nd amendment.

I, personally, (a proud lib prog snowflake) SUPPORT every citizens right to own hand guns, rifles, shot guns and automatic weapons.

But it is certainly possible for some subset of the population to redefine what the 2nd amendment means and cause it to be "fact".

an example?

well.....some prominent conservatives have stated that the constitution is a CHRISTIAN DOCUMENT.

get enough supreme court judges to agree to THAT and next thing you know "ONLY christians have rights" resulting in NON christians NOT being able to buy weapons because the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them.

 

[Rigby5]

And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.

anybody can Talk. Men have arguments.

Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Indeed it is. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Who shall not be infringed upon? The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon? C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument". Make it. So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

 

[Rigby5]

[
Wrong.
First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?

Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?

Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....

In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them. The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.

The Comanche were yet another story;

{Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book The Comanche Empire, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}

Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History

Wrong. That is totally made up. We know almost nothing about the Mayans, and they disappeared before anyone could write anything about them, and those who did later write about them were the biased Christian Conquistador missionaries, who have no credibility at all.
You just watched the movie, "Apocalypto" and believed it was true. But it was totally and completely made up, and made no sense at all. I enjoyed the movie, but there was nothing based on knowledge in it.

Again, what possible slavery could primitive hunter/gatherers use? The answer is none. The slaves would not only be sitting around all the time, but would actually waste additional effort to prevent them from escaping and needing to be fed. Any hunter/gather society would be far better off without slaves, so would not bother. When mates are ritually kidnapped from other tribes, that is not slavery, since they were adopted into the new tribe, as relative equals eventually. Kidnapping mates is good evolution because it reduced inbreeding.

Any tale of the Comanche would be pointless, because they had been totally displaced by the European invasion, and they then were a totally artificial reaction to extreme external stress. Native American cultures were totally altered by contact with Europeans, so are not useful to study AFTER contact. The Comanche were known as the Lords of the Southwest Great Plains, but the reality is that no one lived on the Great Plains originally, because the weather was too drastic. It was only after Europeans brought horses and had displaced natives from better places, that anyone lived on the Great Plains. In fact, some of the Great Plains tribes, like the Mandans, likely were created from lost European settlements.

I suspect you are confusing Mayan and Toltec. The Mayans are well known and documented.

Mayan history

As for the slavery practiced by the Cheyenne, you do grasp they were doing this into the late 19th century, right? The army had to deploy troops to protect the Cherokee from predation by the Cheyenne seeking slaves. The hunters were viewed as too important to engage in physical labor, so they took slaves.

The problem here is that you are extremely ignorant and simply make shit up to tell the story you wish had happened, rather than dealing with the facts of what did happen.

No, the Mayan capital at Maya Tikal was definitively abandoned around 900 AD, so there were only scatter remnants left when the Spanish conquistadors finished them off around 1500 AD.

You do realize that by the late 19th century almost all the Native Americans had been killed or driven off their land and they were forced to scrabble for survival on the barren Great Plaines?
Around 1750 there were around 10 million of them, and by 1890. there were fewer than 1 million left.
By the late 19th century, there were not really any natural tribes left any more.

And you keep talking about "physical labor", but hunter/gathers do NOT do any significant physical labor.
They preferred to hunt, which had no use for slaves.
That is the whole point of being hunter/gatherers instead of sedentary farming, which the Plains Indians usually did not take up.
The exceptions would be the Mandan, Pueblo, Anasazi, and Hopi, who were farmers. But they were not known for taking slaves either.

The problem is you just don't know anything about native culture, history, or anthropology.

 

[Rigby5]

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

everything in the constitution is subject to interpretation.

even the 2nd amendment.

I, personally, (a proud lib prog snowflake) SUPPORT every citizens right to own hand guns, rifles, shot guns and automatic weapons.

But it is certainly possible for some subset of the population to redefine what the 2nd amendment means and cause it to be "fact".

an example?

well.....some prominent conservatives have stated that the constitution is a CHRISTIAN DOCUMENT.

get enough supreme court judges to agree to THAT and next thing you know "ONLY christians have rights" resulting in NON christians NOT being able to buy weapons because the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them.

Does not at all work that way.
Inherent individual rights come first, that is what authorizes a rebellion when there is infringement by the crown, and that is why the Constitution and all legislation written after have to conform to and be in accord with what is necessary in order to defend those inherent individual rights.
Government, legislation, and court rulings are not and can not be arbitrary in a democratic republic. Any and all laws must conform with inherent rights or it is inherently illegal, no matter who proposes or ratifies it.
If someone tries to reverse the meaning of individual rights by claiming it only belongs to a subset, that does not change the law or what is rights, but only nullifies the government that attempts the subversion.
That just justifies another revolution.
Again, the 2nd amendment is NOT the source of the right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment and the whole Bill of Rights is just a restatement of inherent rights as a reminder, so that the federal government remains forever constrained.
Trying to change the 2nd amendment can not change the underlying inherent right it expresses. All it does is force the people to have to defend themselves against whomever tries to make that change, as a clear and present danger to the republic.

 

[danielpalos]

anybody can Talk. Men have arguments.

Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Indeed it is. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Who shall not be infringed upon? The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon? C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument". Make it. So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

You merely appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law; what a coincidence for the right wing who claim to be for our own Constitution.

Wellness of regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the militias of the United States.

And, you confuse natural rights with our civil rights and obligations.

 

[anynameyouwish]

anybody can Talk. Men have arguments.

Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Indeed it is. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Who shall not be infringed upon? The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon? C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument". Make it. So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

 

[Lesh]

Scalia knew the militia argument was a loser. At BEST it only "protected" gun rights for males between 17 and 45 and that's just not enough.

So what did he do in Heller? He ridiculously tried to claim that the phrase "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..." was inserted into that remarkably spare and well considered document carelessly and was nothing but rhetorical throat clearing and meant nothing.

He decoupled that phrase from the 2A because he knew it was a losing argument

 

[Lesh]

Does that mean that the Constitution removes gun rights?

Absolutely not. It simply doesn't ADDRESS them in any other way than as "necessary" to A Well Regulated Militia....which no longer exists.

It is a state and local matter

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

 

[Rigby5]

Indeed it is. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Who shall not be infringed upon? The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon? C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument". Make it. So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

You merely appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law; what a coincidence for the right wing who claim to be for our own Constitution.

Wellness of regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the militias of the United States.

And, you confuse natural rights with our civil rights and obligations.

First of all, I am far more left wing than anyone else on this whole board.

Second is that the federal government very explicitly had nothing at all to do with militias except to be able to call them up in emergencies.
That is why the militias are hardly mentioned at all in the federal constitution of any federal legislation. The militias are local, state, and individual. When a sheriff deputizes a posse, that is a militia at work.

I do not confuse natural rights with civil rights or obligations. Natural rights are the total reality, and civil rights and obligations are just a subset, based on what needs exist for a modern society. But I never use the phrase "Natural Rights" because in the 18th century, royalty used that phrase to justify their unequal privileges. For example, "divine right of kings" was considered a Natural Right, and I of course do not.

 

[Rigby5]

Indeed it is. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Who shall not be infringed upon? The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon? C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument". Make it. So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

NO!, you must not and CAN not legally draw the line anywhere, and no one has the authority to do so.
But clearly whenever you can easily harm others, the need, storage, security, use, etc., can be investigated and reasonable safe guards enacted. That is not gun control. Gun control is inherently wrong because clearly government employees are not investigated as to harm to others, need, storage, security, use, etc. In fact, likely most police should be disarmed, because firearms cause them to be more at risk and them to be more negative than positive.

So getting back to nuclear warheads, the answer is that yes anyone has to have a path to gain possession.
They could be doing essential research in deep caves, have a plan for a mining operation in the asteroid belt beyond Mars, etc. , or some other need that harms no one else. In which case there would be no legal basis for stopping them.
The fact the military has them requires everyone have equal access.
The fact we can require safety assurances for them is because we also are supposed to require the exact same safety assurances from the military.
And in fact, it is the military I am most worried about, not average people.
The military is much less responsible, likely to be telling the truth, consider safety of others, etc.

Gun control is asymmetric, with government being arbitrary in its illegal suppression of the rights of average citizens.
When you apply safety concerns symmetrically, that is through a legal authority of the people.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

You merely appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law; what a coincidence for the right wing who claim to be for our own Constitution.

Wellness of regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the militias of the United States.

And, you confuse natural rights with our civil rights and obligations.

First of all, I am far more left wing than anyone else on this whole board.

Second is that the federal government very explicitly had nothing at all to do with militias except to be able to call them up in emergencies.
That is why the militias are hardly mentioned at all in the federal constitution of any federal legislation. The militias are local, state, and individual. When a sheriff deputizes a posse, that is a militia at work.

I do not confuse natural rights with civil rights or obligations. Natural rights are the total reality, and civil rights and obligations are just a subset, based on what needs exist for a modern society. But I never use the phrase "Natural Rights" because in the 18th century, royalty used that phrase to justify their unequal privileges. For example, "divine right of kings" was considered a Natural Right, and I of course do not.

you must be on the right wing; story teller. only the right wing makes up that much right wing fantasy.

 

[Rigby5]

Does that mean that the Constitution removes gun rights?

Absolutely not. It simply doesn't ADDRESS them in any other way than as "necessary" to A Well Regulated Militia....which no longer exists.

It is a state and local matter

I agree it is a state and local matter.
But the well regulated militia most certainly does exist and must always exist.
When the Korean grocers defended their stores during the LA riots, that clearly was the local "well regulated militia".
They knew what they were doing, caused no harm, and were the only law available to protect the rights of them and their family investments.
And the 2nd amendment is not dependent upon that "well regulated militia" phrase at all.
When you want to say something should be true, you don't have to list all the reason why it should be true.
You only have to list one to prove it should, and you really do not have to list any at all if you do not want to.
So if that one listed no longer existed, it would not at all negate the need for the thing that should be true.
For example, someone in 1800 were to say we needed a militia to guard against pirates, that would not negate the need for a militia after pirates no longer exist. It is just an example, not a dependent clause. For it to indicate dependency, then it would have to have a word implying dependency, like "if", "due to", or "because".
But even that would not negate the need if there were other reasons for it, just negate the whole sentence.
The well regulated militia is the whole general armed population, and clearly any free state is and will always be dependent upon the existance of a well armed and practiced general population. It can never be any other way.

 

[Rigby5]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

Everyone should be a "gun lover" in a free state, because a general population maintains its freedom only by loving guns, or what ever suitable means of force can be used to maintain their freedom.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

Everyone should be a "gun lover" in a free state, because a general population maintains its freedom only by loving guns, or what ever suitable means of force can be used to maintain their freedom.

We should not need our alleged and exorbitantly expensive wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

We should be organizing more militia until we have no security problems.

 

[Rigby5]

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

You merely appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law; what a coincidence for the right wing who claim to be for our own Constitution.

Wellness of regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the militias of the United States.

And, you confuse natural rights with our civil rights and obligations.

First of all, I am far more left wing than anyone else on this whole board.

Second is that the federal government very explicitly had nothing at all to do with militias except to be able to call them up in emergencies.
That is why the militias are hardly mentioned at all in the federal constitution of any federal legislation. The militias are local, state, and individual. When a sheriff deputizes a posse, that is a militia at work.

I do not confuse natural rights with civil rights or obligations. Natural rights are the total reality, and civil rights and obligations are just a subset, based on what needs exist for a modern society. But I never use the phrase "Natural Rights" because in the 18th century, royalty used that phrase to justify their unequal privileges. For example, "divine right of kings" was considered a Natural Right, and I of course do not.

you must be on the right wing; story teller. only the right wing makes up that much right wing fantasy.

Nonsense.
The main problem from the overuse and abuse of firearms actually comes from the police and military, who actually are the most corrupt, since government always tends toward corruption.
You can't get more progressive than that.
A leftest, liberal, progressive, etc., defends individual rights against the corruption of capitalists buying government.
So there is no possible way that gun control could ever be compatible with a leftest, liberal, progressive, etc.
Gun control is and always will be fascism.
It is the ultimate in arbitrary and enforce inequality.
It is the means by which slavery, racism, genocide, etc., is created and maintained.