The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia.

And the militia are the people?

who has the right?

.

if it is about the security of a free State, well regulated militia of the whole People are declared necessary.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

if it is about the security of a free State, well regulated militia of the whole People are declared necessary.

...and what do they do to preserve the security of a free state?

Prohibit the infringement on the right of the people.....not the militia or any other bullshit collective argument that is unsupported by every imaginable legal authority.

Again, how did the founders provide for the security of a free state?

They prohibited the infringement of the right of the people.

One more time:

What did the founders do to provide for the security of a free state?

Prohibited infringement of the right of the people.

 

[teddyearp]

Be careful who you talk down to. You may just be standing on your head.

I was talking up to you for your refresher and must be superior knowledge.

 

[Lesh]

The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.

The 2A is worded perfectly and reflects the (at the time) need for a militia because of the distrust the Founders had of a standing "regular" Army. That militia is described in both it's make up and it's purpose in Article 2 Section 8 and in essence no longer applies with the advent of modern war and the reformation of the militia with the Dick Act.

 

[danielpalos]

if it is about the security of a free State, well regulated militia of the whole People are declared necessary.

...and what do they do to preserve the security of a free state?

Prohibit the infringement on the right of the people.....not the militia or any other bullshit collective argument that is unsupported by every imaginable legal authority.

Again, how did the founders provide for the security of a free state?

They prohibited the infringement of the right of the people.

One more time:

What did the founders do to provide for the security of a free state?

Prohibited infringement of the right of the people.

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it amends this: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Lesh]

You seem to be confusing Article two Section eight with the 2A.

Article 2 Section 8 describes the duties and make up of the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2A

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to be confusing Article two Section eight with the 2A.

Article 2 Section 8 describes the duties and make up of the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2A

what are you talking about?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

...and because a well-regulated militia is necessary.....the right of the people (meaning ALL people, not a particular militia or specifically defined group of people) shall not be infringed.

To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.

Actually, it is asinine to assume that 'militia' in the second amendment refers only to say the National Guard or military. Why would a government need to make sure that their military's right to keep and bear arms was not infringed? That flies in the face of all logic and common sense.

"....militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group;..."


Pretty much still does.


The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.


Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)
[10 U.S. Code § 311 - Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority]

 

[danielpalos]

thank Goodness political chics aren't "gunnys" and love "breaking in the new guys".

 

[Markle]

What it means is that in order to prevent gays from marrying, you have to prove it would harm someone else if they did marry.
And I don't think anyone can come up with any harm that would cause others.

For pot to be illegal, you have to prove pot users harm others, which again I think is impossible to show.

Since police not only have guns, but an incredibly bad history of abusing guns, clearly there is not legal means by which the government can restrict guns.

With all of the above, it is easy to prove harm to others and/or you are flat out wrong.

As you know, marijuana does great harm to others. The problem seems to be that America has devolved to the point where more people would prefer to be stoned than clear-headed and working toward goals. Sad.

Marijuana causes a disruption in the brain of young people up to the age of 25. Do you believe that does no harm to others? How?

Saying that police have, "an incredibly bad history of abusing guns", is an outright lie. The reason it makes news is that it is such an infinitesimal fraction of what happens. For example, does the news report all the shootings, drive-by shooting, murders and injured on the South Side of Chicago? What about all the gang violence in other cities? Nothing. If there is an outrageous weekend, THAT makes the news.

Yesterday a Delta Airlines flight suddenly dropped twice, 30,000 feet. Several people were injured, carts flew everywhere. Why did it make the news? Because it is so INCREDIBLY RARE. The airlines' record of safety has gotten so good that even a plane that does not crash, goes through incredible turbulence and still lands safely, IS NEWS.

 

[Markle]

So, it doesn't bother you that scanners can't detect 3-D plastic guns at airports?

There are many reasons for alarm, as I explained in an expert declaration filed in the states’ lawsuit. First, a plastic firearm would rarely be detectable by metal detectors, which are the standard public safety protocol at airports, stadiums, concert halls, public buildings like courthouses, and, increasingly, schools. Although the federal Undetectable Firearms Act requires guns to include enough metal to set off a metal detector, the requirement can be evaded easily by simply not including the non-operable piece of metal in the 3D-printed gun. And for those who say that plastic firearms are ineffective because of their propensity to blow up, a 2013 test by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of Defense Distributed’s 3D-printed handgun, the “Liberator,” showed it fired without fail all eight times it was tested.

3D-Printed Plastic Guns: Five Reasons to Worry

Specifically, what is your point?

 

[Markle]

The problem with your approach is that you don’t know who the rapier’s, robber’s and murderers are until after the crime has been committed. If you want to stop an unlawful use of gun’s then you need background checks and the like before the weapon is sold.

I cannot imagine why you would reject this approach?

Did you really post that, knowing what it says? You seem to go out of your way to destroy your own post.

By the way, a rapier is a type of sword. Rapier's means something that belongs to the Rapier. Rapists is the plural form of Rapist.

When did "rapier's [rapists], robber's [robbers] and murders" go into a legitimate gun store, fill out an application for a gun, have a background check and wait whatever the time period is, then go back and pick up the weapon?

You really believe that?

 

[Markle]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

Please be specific. What is it about the Second Amendment that you feel is "antiquated, out of date..."? What would you do to update it to reflect the times and why?

What is, "the threat of overkill firepower...for the average citizen"?

 

[watchingfromafar]

As you know, marijuana does great harm to others. The problem seems to be that America has devolved to the point where more people would prefer to be stoned than clear-headed and working toward goals. Sad.

Have you ever tried it; just to see what this is all about-?

I have, (not a regular smoker but have tried it); I found it hard or impossible to be "angry" while under its influence.
Do you have any real evidence where someone who was "high" committed a crime or injured someone-?

Just asking -

 

[watchingfromafar]

Markle stated-------

"Comey said Clinton wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand what information was classified and what wasn’t."

Republicons determined that Hillary’s email did not disclose classified information.

Having said that~~~~ Trump disclosed the name of an FBI agent working undercover in a foreign country. Once disclosed, this person’s cover was blown, his life was in jeopardy and had to return to the USA ASAP!!

maybe they promised Trump a Trump Tower in their country?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Just for the record***************

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -

 

[Markle]

Just for the record***************

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -

As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws. The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover. Finally, it came out.

Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.

CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT
06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz

[...]

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

[...]

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not

 

[watchingfromafar]

As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws.

You didn't answer my question.

Your study did not provide one example of someone defending themselves against a crime using a gun. Generalities are not facts; I could use Trump as a good example,

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -

 

[watchingfromafar]

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) Comey said Clinton wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand what information was classified and what wasn’t.

But, but,,but,,but,,but,,but,,but,,but,, Clinton did not email any classified information.

End Of Da Myth
-​

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just for the record***************

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -

As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws. The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover. Finally, it came out.

Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.

CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT
06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz

[...]

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

[...]

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not

One huge problem. I keep seeing this being cited over and over. yet the only time anyone has shown a url to it lead to a "Page not Found". It doesn't exist. It's made up. Find me the original CDC report and then I can discuss it with you. Until then, it's just a lot of people just making shit up.