The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd belongs to the people.
Says so right in the text.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia,
The people.
Thus, any reference to "well regulated militia" is irrelevant when discussing who holds the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights.

I know you're upset that I didn't address post #258 of which I can tell that you put a lot of effort. I apologize but suggest that this matter really isn't that complicated.

The 2ndA is a single sentence written very clearly. It is not my side of the argument who wishes to dispose of part of the language in the sentence on the pretense that it violates an ancient right, on the pretense that what the founders wrote isn't what they meant. Hogwash, they knew exactly what they were doing and exactly what they meant. Didn't you recently plead how wise they were?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it was a comment on the kind of person who makes a joke out of shooting women and children.

Better than kind of person who uses the shooting of women and children to advance a political agenda.

Did you do that? Yes, I believe that you did. Be a good little Democrat and stand accountable rather than trying to make passive-aggressive the culprit in your poor taste.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know you're upset that I didn't address post #258 of which I can tell that you put a lot of effort.

Upset? You did exactly as I expected.
You didn't address it because you know you cannot - to no one's surprise.

I didn't put any effort into it, other than copy/and paste the Heller opinion --which addresses your concern, in full.

 

[M14 Shooter]

May I suggest that it would be in your interest to cooperate.

Or.... what?
Why should we agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms?

On the order of two-thirds of all voters support the exploration of reasonable gun regulation. Where will your gun rights go if you continue to buck those odds?

"Shall not be infringed"

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Whenever we propose something, douchebags like you object. Like when we proposed allowing teachers with permits to carry in the classroom.

I can tell you are a reasonable person by your resort to name-calling.

Teachers didn't sign on for combat. Why don't you have teachers across the country take a vote. Ask them if they want to carry weapons.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Upset? You did exactly as I expected.
You didn't address it because you know you cannot - to no one's surprise.

I didn't put any effort into it, other than copy/and paste the Heller opinion --which addresses your concern, in full.

I did address it. I just didn't waste my time with all the hocus pocus about ancient rights. Conferred by who?

I also don't buy into your suggestion that the founding fathers were nitwits who included a pointless clause.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Teachers didn't sign on for combat.

Did they sign on for gun-free zones?

 

[Orangecat]

No, it was a comment on the kind of person who makes a joke out of shooting women and children.

Did you do that? Yes, I believe that you did. Be a good little Republican and stand accountable rather than trying to make passive-aggressive the culprit in your poor taste.

STFU, moron.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I did address it.

This is a lie, as you are fully aware of the fact you cannot in any way demonstrate the argument presented to you to be unsound.
Thus, you concern has been addressed and your complaint, negated - both in full.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Is someone stopping you from having your conversation? Go the fuck ahead.
The problem arises when your "conversation" results in an unconstitutional infringement upon our rights.

Is someone stopping you from exercising your rights as they are currently guaranteed?

Your right to bear arms flows from the need of a well-regulated militia at a time when there was no standing army. "Shall not be abridged" does not mean unregulated. The founding fathers were not so stupid as to contradict themselves regardless of what mass duck-murdering Scalia wrote. You have a right to bear arms and the people have the right to regulate.

If my conversation results in a lawful change in the law, you'll either live with it or become that which you accuse me.

If a new court overturns Heller, you'll obey the new law or find your ass in jail. Wait, I forgot that your team only plays by the rules when it suits them. Hence, the attempted overturn of an election on the merit of more than sixty failed court filings and firing blanks at vote re-counts.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Did they sign on for gun-free zones?

I believe that would coincide with their preferences. Why don't you ask the teachers? What kind of odds are you offering that a majority of teachers do not wish to play LEO?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

STFU, moron.

Make me.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

This is a lie, as you are fully aware of the fact you cannot in any way demonstrate the argument presented to you to be unsound.
Thus, you concern has been addressed and your complaint, negated - both in full.

The above is a lie. You cannot demonstrate that the founding fathers were morons who lacked mastery of the English Language. They knew full well what they wrote.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Better than kind of person who uses the shooting of women and children to advance a political agenda.

Did you do that? Yes, I believe that you did. Be a good little Democrat and stand accountable rather than trying to make passive-aggressive the culprit in your poor taste.

Let's get something straight.

A few weeks ago a very sick young man waltzed into a gun shop, bought weapons and killed nineteen children. Why was his acquisition of firearms so easy? In part because some people find the murder of innocent children more tolerable than the inconvenience of a background check.

 

[bripat9643]

I can tell you are a reasonable person by your resort to name-calling.

Teachers didn't sign on for combat. Why don't you have teachers across the country take a vote. Ask them if they want to carry weapons.

Do you actually believe you're entitled to be treated with respect? You're a Democrat. You use dead bodies to advance your political agenda. Is there any kind of person on this planet who is lower than that?

 

[Orangecat]

Your right to bear arms flows from the need of a well-regulated militia

Incorrect. I have a natural right to defend myself in whatever way I feel necessary.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no right to murder children in school classrooms.

Protect them and stop pushing for ineffective gun control laws.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

5. A Bill for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 18 June 1779​

Founders Online: 5. A Bill for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 18 June …

5. A Bill for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia, 18 June 1779

founders.archives.gov

The verbiage is extensive, but the Bill does need to be read in full to appreciate what the founding fathers meant by well-regulated.

Certainly, it is nothing so trivial as what one of the local clowns described as "a well-regulated militia of one".

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Incorrect. I have a natural right to defend myself in whatever way I feel necessary.

You have a right to defend yourself, no question. And, in those acts you also have an obligation not to contribute to the harm of the innocent. Submitting to a background check, evidencing competence with your weapons along with registering and securing your weapons are examples of regulations that help protect the public. I appreciate that such are also inconvenient.

I have a natural right to the pursuit of happiness but that didn't stop the government from sending me to SE Asia. It's as simple as this: If you wish to live in a civilized community, your rights will be impacted by the rights of others. Civilization comes at a price, and it isn't just the damned taxes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your right to bear arms flows from the need of a well-regulated militia at a time when there was no standing army.

And thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is protected.
""Right to keep and bear arms" is far more broad than "right to keep and bear arms in serviceof the militia" -- somethng that cannot exist.

"Shall not be abridged" does not mean unregulated.

It -does- mean "free from unnecessary and ineffective restrictions" - that is, infringement.

The founding fathers were not so stupid as to contradict themselves regardless of what mass duck-murdering Scalia wrote. You have a right to bear arms and the people have the right to regulate.

You cannot demonstrate the contradiction you claim

If a new court overturns Heller, you'll obey the new law or find your ass in jail.

Until then, the 2nd is there, it means something you don't like, and you don't get to ignore it.