The Right To Bear Arms

[Lakhota]

I'd be happy just getting universal background checks.

why do you support something that is worthless in decreasing crime and is being pushed as a reason to get registration?

For much the same reason I support speed limits and legal authorities to enforce them. Imagine what the highways would be without them.

To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented more than two million convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business”€ of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

Though sometimes referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,”€ the “€œprivate sales”€ described above include firearms sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.

Unfortunately, a majority of states have yet to take any action to regulate the private sale of firearms. In order to guarantee that criminals, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and others are denied unchecked access to guns, the U.S. Congress should enact a federal law requiring universal background checks on all sales of firearms, including private sales.

Universal Background Checks Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

every time someone is properly prevented from buying a gun through NICS that person has engaged in a federal felony of perjury. HOW MANY DENIED applicants who had lied on their form (IF YOU ADMIT ON YOUR 4473 that you are a felon etc, NO BACKGROUND CHECK IS CONDUCTED-rather the clerk refuses to sell you the gun) HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED. I was a DOJ attorney for almost 25 years and such cases almost never happened.

There is no gun show loophole. CONGRESS chose to impose the requirement to conduct BGCs only on those who engage in INTERSTATE COMMERCE. There is no sufficient nexus with interstate commerce to justify a federal universal BGC requirement.

and criminals in possession of weapons cannot be prosecuted for failing to conduct a BGC due to the fifth amendment

so you support a law that is unconstitutional, won't solve anything and DOES NOT EVEN APPLY TO CRIMINALS

and anyone who understands the war on drugs realizes how futile it is to try to eliminate the black market with criminal sanctions

So, your solution is what - DO NOTHING? Don't even make an attempt? Why not just do away with speed limits and cops, etc.? Return to the wild, wild west.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[turtledude]

So, your solution is what - DO NOTHING? Don't even make an attempt? Why not just do away with speed limits and cops, etc.? Return to the wild, wild west.

I am not a liberal. I don't need to do something that is worthless to feel good about myself. I don't sit around wringing my hands screaming WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING EVEN IF IT IS A WASTE OF TIME, WILL HURT HONEST PEOPLE and won't do a DAMN THING TO STOP CRIME

that is the difference between a pragmatist and a pillow headed idealist

some of you actually feel a NEED to do something either so you can feel good about yourself or to pander to suc people

others of you know it won't work but it will set the stage for more restrictions on our rights-like registration

So I don't have much use for the WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING rants

 

[frigidweirdo]

LOL! That's funny.

Funny you want me to back everything I said up instead of just spouting simple sentences? Right you are then.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

During the debates in the House (Senate records were kept a secret) they debated the inclusion of the clause (which changed) over the course of the debate with two distinct types.

1st: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

2nd:but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Now, here it looks like they're using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously to me. What do you think?

Well to back this up I'll look at the debate.

Mr Gerry said:"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Now, if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around, why would declaring those who couldn't carry guns around (but still own them) allow people in power to destroy the constitution? Because they can't use self defence? Doesn't make sense.
It does make sense that if people were not allowed to "render military service" then this might take away from the actual purpose of the 2A which is to protect the militia from the US govt.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "

Well that's what Mr Gerry thinks this is all about. You see self defence, carrying weapons around individually here?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

They're talking about excluding people from militia duty. "render military service", "bear arms", "militia duty", they are the same thing.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

And here they even use the two same things, to mean the same thing, next to each other.

There's more in there. But shall we move on?

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.

You don't think it's funny the NRA supports carry and conceal permits?

Surely this would go against licensing a right.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This case was one where they looked at whether men drilling, but not part of the militia, was a right, they said it wasn't.

We also have state constitutions from before the 2A was ratified that show there was a right to be in the militia for the protection of the militia, so the common defence would be served.

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

"1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

And the biggest joke of all is George Washington

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

He uses the term "bear arms" in the sense of "render military service" and "militia duty".

So now, I'm going to see what you've got. Will it be insults and not much else, or will be hardcore facts or will it be quotes taken massively out of context????

Hmmmmm.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's clear for those who don't want to understand the truth.

The right shall not be infringed. But what is the right? This is the hard part.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Not the right to carry arms. The founding fathers were quite clear on that one.

Then why doesn't the Constitution say the right shall not be infringed as long as you belong to a certain group?[/QUOTE]

Who's talking about certain groups?

Everyone has the right to be in the militia.

Where it gets confusing is that the right can and is infringed upon. Criminals are not allowed to be in the militia, either while in prison or after being in prison. The constitutionality of this is debatable after prison, but I doubt anyone would say an individual in prison has the right to be in the militia.

Where you're making the mistake is thinking the right is actually to carry weapons. People have made the argument that ownership of guns should only be for those in the militia. This isn't so. It's a duff argument and I'm not making it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Chicago and DC prove that disarming honest people is a failure. its too bad that the politicians who disarmed honest citizens cannot be tried as co-conspirators with the felons.

Japan and China prove that disarming people is a success.

 

[turtledude]

Chicago and DC prove that disarming honest people is a failure. its too bad that the politicians who disarmed honest citizens cannot be tried as co-conspirators with the felons.

Japan and China prove that disarming people is a success.

you want the civil liberties of those two nations? success being no civil liberties? or on where only the government and criminals have weapons?

and its a little late here when we have hundreds of millions of firearms

 

[frigidweirdo]

so that is why the founders said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Oh they didn't say that

and there is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION that properly empowered the FEDERAL government to interfere with our natural right to be armed

Er.... What?

It's not the right of the militia to bear arms.

It's the right of the individual to be in the militia. Imagine the militia trying to be in the militia, it wouldn't make sense, would it?

What the right to keep and bear arms means is that an individual can keep weapons so if the US govt starts doing stuff it shouldn't the militia has a ready supply of weapons. Also it means if the US govt starts playing up, it has a ready supply of personnel.

They wanted to protect the militia, by protecting the individuals to be in it, and to be able to be armed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But cars were used as the excuse to regulate guns. Why?

I don't know, it wasn't me that made this argument.

 

[turtledude]

LOL! That's funny.

Funny you want me to back everything I said up instead of just spouting simple sentences? Right you are then.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

During the debates in the House (Senate records were kept a secret) they debated the inclusion of the clause (which changed) over the course of the debate with two distinct types.

1st: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

2nd:but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Now, here it looks like they're using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously to me. What do you think?

Well to back this up I'll look at the debate.

Mr Gerry said:"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Now, if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around, why would declaring those who couldn't carry guns around (but still own them) allow people in power to destroy the constitution? Because they can't use self defence? Doesn't make sense.
It does make sense that if people were not allowed to "render military service" then this might take away from the actual purpose of the 2A which is to protect the militia from the US govt.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "

Well that's what Mr Gerry thinks this is all about. You see self defence, carrying weapons around individually here?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

They're talking about excluding people from militia duty. "render military service", "bear arms", "militia duty", they are the same thing.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

And here they even use the two same things, to mean the same thing, next to each other.

There's more in there. But shall we move on?

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.

You don't think it's funny the NRA supports carry and conceal permits?

Surely this would go against licensing a right.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This case was one where they looked at whether men drilling, but not part of the militia, was a right, they said it wasn't.

We also have state constitutions from before the 2A was ratified that show there was a right to be in the militia for the protection of the militia, so the common defence would be served.

"1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

"1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

And the biggest joke of all is George Washington

SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

He uses the term "bear arms" in the sense of "render military service" and "militia duty".

So now, I'm going to see what you've got. Will it be insults and not much else, or will be hardcore facts or will it be quotes taken massively out of context????

Hmmmmm.

the founders never intended the federal government have any power to regulate firearms. You simply cannot find any evidence they did. So under the tenth amendment, federal gun control is an abomination so ranting about what the 2A says means little. Under the 9th amendment, the natural right of self defense and its corollary of free citizens to be armed are recognized. so putting your gun ban eggs in the basket of the 2A is a losing strategy

 

[turtledude]

so that is why the founders said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Oh they didn't say that

and there is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION that properly empowered the FEDERAL government to interfere with our natural right to be armed

Er.... What?

It's not the right of the militia to bear arms.

It's the right of the individual to be in the militia. Imagine the militia trying to be in the militia, it wouldn't make sense, would it?

What the right to keep and bear arms means is that an individual can keep weapons so if the US govt starts doing stuff it shouldn't the militia has a ready supply of weapons. Also it means if the US govt starts playing up, it has a ready supply of personnel.

They wanted to protect the militia, by protecting the individuals to be in it, and to be able to be armed.

there is no reputable legal scholar who agrees with that even though Amar sort of tries to give lip service to that opinion. The USSC rejected it in Heller and so have almost every major scholar. why would a bill of rights designed to recognize natural rights be limited to serving in a militia which is not a natural right

 

[frigidweirdo]

you want the civil liberties of those two nations? success being no civil liberties? or on where only the government and criminals have weapons?

and its a little late here when we have hundreds of millions of firearms

Japan's quite free. China isn't. But they are a lot safer than the US. That's the point.

You talk about success. What is success? That civil liberties are taken by criminals instead of the government?

What about the native americans who get pounded on? Leonard Peltier's spent how long in prison because he had something the govt didn't want people to hear?

So you define success for me and we'll see how successful the US is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the founders never intended the federal government have any power to regulate firearms. You simply cannot find any evidence they did. So under the tenth amendment, federal gun control is an abomination so ranting about what the 2A says means little. Under the 9th amendment, the natural right of self defense and its corollary of free citizens to be armed are recognized. so putting your gun ban eggs in the basket of the 2A is a losing strategy

The founders made a clause that allows the US govt and the states to alter the US Constitution. They also knew that no matter what the constitution says the govt might do as it pleases anyway. Hence why the ultimate check and balance is the militia.
They also worried that a militia without control of the govt would go rouge, so they put constraints on the militia, ie power to the US govt.

The US govt could call up the militia. Now, imagine you call up the militia, then take away all the guns that the militia has, because hey, they're in the army now, and then you send them back home. That power is there. Right?

So, your argument here is I shouldn't bother to discuss the 2A because it's all irrelevant anyway. So tell me this. Why did they write the 2A if it is irrelevant? That makes no sense at all.

You're talking self defence. I'm sorry to have to ask, WHY? What has this got to do with what we're talking about?

You can defend yourself with your hands, with a TV, with a car, with a dog, with a spoon, with a rock, with water, with just about ANYTHING. Are you trying to claim that because you can defend yourself with a gun and the 2A says "arms" that therefore the 2A protects the right to self defence?

The right to self defence exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defence. It allows individuals to have guns and be in the militia. If they use the guns in self defence woopdiedoo for them, but what has it got to do with this topic and the 2A?

The answer is sweet FA. (Nothing)

 

[turtledude]

you want the civil liberties of those two nations? success being no civil liberties? or on where only the government and criminals have weapons?

and its a little late here when we have hundreds of millions of firearms

Japan's quite free. China isn't. But they are a lot safer than the US. That's the point.

You talk about success. What is success? That civil liberties are taken by criminals instead of the government?

What about the native americans who get pounded on? Leonard Peltier's spent how long in prison because he had something the govt didn't want people to hear?

So you define success for me and we'll see how successful the US is.

gun control laws in the USA have no track record of doing anything other than harassing honest people

there is not a single study that can demonstrated that waiting periods, magazine limits, assault weapon (LOL) bans etc do anything good. and in a free society, there should be a heavy heavy burden on those who want to restrict our freedom

 

[turtledude]

the founders never intended the federal government have any power to regulate firearms. You simply cannot find any evidence they did. So under the tenth amendment, federal gun control is an abomination so ranting about what the 2A says means little. Under the 9th amendment, the natural right of self defense and its corollary of free citizens to be armed are recognized. so putting your gun ban eggs in the basket of the 2A is a losing strategy

The founders made a clause that allows the US govt and the states to alter the US Constitution. They also knew that no matter what the constitution says the govt might do as it pleases anyway. Hence why the ultimate check and balance is the militia.
They also worried that a militia without control of the govt would go rouge, so they put constraints on the militia, ie power to the US govt.

The US govt could call up the militia. Now, imagine you call up the militia, then take away all the guns that the militia has, because hey, they're in the army now, and then you send them back home. That power is there. Right?

So, your argument here is I shouldn't bother to discuss the 2A because it's all irrelevant anyway. So tell me this. Why did they write the 2A if it is irrelevant? That makes no sense at all.

You're talking self defence. I'm sorry to have to ask, WHY? What has this got to do with what we're talking about?

You can defend yourself with your hands, with a TV, with a car, with a dog, with a spoon, with a rock, with water, with just about ANYTHING. Are you trying to claim that because you can defend yourself with a gun and the 2A says "arms" that therefore the 2A protects the right to self defence?

The right to self defence exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defence. It allows individuals to have guns and be in the militia. If they use the guns in self defence woopdiedoo for them, but what has it got to do with this topic and the 2A?

The answer is sweet FA. (Nothing)

remind me where the federal government was given any power to regulate small arms?

the government couldn't take away arms. they don't have the proper power.

the founders believed in the natural right of self defense-why would they allow the federal government a power to render that natural right moot


you really are demonstrating that you have spent a little bit of time on this but you really do not know the subject.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I love these left wing "gun owners" that want to gut the 2nd.

They remind me of the Vichy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

there is no reputable legal scholar who agrees with that even though Amar sort of tries to give lip service to that opinion. The USSC rejected it in Heller and so have almost every major scholar. why would a bill of rights designed to recognize natural rights be limited to serving in a militia which is not a natural right

How many "reputable legal scholars" know much about an amendment that hardly ever comes up in the course of their job that isn't as biased as hell?

Also, they didn't reject this, that's the point.

Here's how.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "

The right to keep arms = the right to own a weapon not connected to militia duty. This is what I'm saying.
The right to bear arms is not mentioned here.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

Tricky language. They talk about the right to carry, saying it's not unlimited. Well there is no right to carry, so whatever. They're sort of pretending there is, using language suggesting there is, without actually having to refer to it.

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

So this is about the ownership of arms, ie, keep arms, and not bear arms.

Oh, and who says that the right to be in the militia is not a natural right? Natural and guns, guns aren't natural, they don't grow on trees.

 

[turtledude]

there is no reputable legal scholar who agrees with that even though Amar sort of tries to give lip service to that opinion. The USSC rejected it in Heller and so have almost every major scholar. why would a bill of rights designed to recognize natural rights be limited to serving in a militia which is not a natural right

How many "reputable legal scholars" know much about an amendment that hardly ever comes up in the course of their job that isn't as biased as hell?

Also, they didn't reject this, that's the point.

Here's how.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "

The right to keep arms = the right to own a weapon not connected to militia duty. This is what I'm saying.
The right to bear arms is not mentioned here.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

Tricky language. They talk about the right to carry, saying it's not unlimited. Well there is no right to carry, so whatever. They're sort of pretending there is, using language suggesting there is, without actually having to refer to it.

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

So this is about the ownership of arms, ie, keep arms, and not bear arms.

Oh, and who says that the right to be in the militia is not a natural right? Natural and guns, guns aren't natural, they don't grow on trees.

I see you know enough to not address the 10A argument or the 9A one-there is no honest way to claim that the federal government was actually given a power to regulate small arms-

the rest of your stuff is silly. Look, I have been dealing with anti gun arguments since I was 15. I am 55 now. I have seen everything. the bottom line-federal gun control is one of the most dishonest things in US History. Senile former Justice Stevens whined recently about the 2A-he refused to address the 10A angle because it destroys the anti gun side when it comes to honesty

the founders knew the several states had time place and use restrictions and that was proper-they never intended overlapping federal jurisdiction

even those who like what FDR did with the commerce clause admit it wasn't consistent with either the language or the intent.

Later-BBT

 

[frigidweirdo]

remind me where the federal government was given any power to regulate small arms?

the government couldn't take away arms. they don't have the proper power.

the founders believed in the natural right of self defense-why would they allow the federal government a power to render that natural right moot


you really are demonstrating that you have spent a little bit of time on this but you really do not know the subject.

It's not about which power the feds were given to regulate small arms.
What power is there to do half the things the US govt does? The point is the US govt DOES THESE THINGS and the founding fathers were not so stupid to believe the govt would just stick to what it is allowed to do in the constitution.

So I'll ask a question.
Is it possible for the US federal govt to change the constitution so that it bans guns with an amendment? Yes or no.

Is it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons?

The Militia Act of 1792

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. "

Your argument is that there is no point in having a right to be in the militia because there's nothing there to stop the feds from stopping people being in the militia.

So why then did Mr Gerry and other founding fathers say things like:

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; "

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. "

I mean, it's there for you to see that the founding fathers were debating this at the time, and they wanted to prevent this from happening. Now you have managed to completely ignore a part of US history because you think you know better.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I love these left wing "gun owners" that want to gut the 2nd.

They remind me of the Vichy.

I love people who make comments that have nothing to do with anything, can't make an argument and wouldn't be able to back it up even if they could.

So you want to debate or just make "I love" statements?????

I love popcorn exploding in space. Blast from exploding stars trapped Earth in space bubble NASA says - Yahoo News UK