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.
We should not need our alleged and exorbitantly expensive wars on crime, drugs, or terror.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 be organizing more militia until we have no security problems.
You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.anybody can Talk. Men have arguments.And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
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.
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.You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.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.
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.
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.....?
You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.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.
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.....?
Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
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
You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.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.
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.....?
Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.
But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia
You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.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.
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.
noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless. Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?
Gun lovers are too lazy to muster but don't mind blaming social service recipients for being too lazy to work for a living.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
Progs are big on blaming material objects when it's convenient to reject personal responsibility, guns included. Heck, the wall included too.
Better to dumb us down so the government makes decisions for us. This way just the felons, illegals and Gastapos get the guns, while Americans with integrity can get fucked. The more chaotic, weak and irresponsible we become, the more easily we're controlled. The people Lakhota supports desire just that.
/——/ Hey Gun Grabber, don’t like guns then don’t buy one.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
And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
Any other questions?
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 Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
/----/ Thanks. I never knew that. BTW, I'd hate to go through High School with the name Dick.And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
Any other questions?
You gonna run with that?
That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs
Any questions?
You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.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.
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.....?
Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.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.
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.....?
Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.
But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia
