The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[M14 Shooter]

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.

When you can demonstrate their argument unsound you'll have a point.
We both know you know you cannot, and we both know you will not even try.
Your response will prove me correct.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

I believe that would coincide with their preferences.

Did it work?

 

[M14 Shooter]

A few weeks ago a very sick young man waltzed into a gun shop, bought weapons and killed nineteen children.

Since then, you and any number of other anti-gun loons have been standing on those bodies and bathing in their blood to push your mindless and otherwise unsellable anti-gun agenda -- indeed, you NEED these shootings for there to be any hope of moving your agenda forward.
Glad we got that straight.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

"Well-regulated" modifies "militia".
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
Thus, "well-regulated" is irrelevant in a discussion about the protections afforded to the right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

If by "inconvenient" you mean "unnecessary and ineffective', then sure.
Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of rights infringe upon those rights.
"Shall not be infringed".

have a natural right to the pursuit of happiness but that didn't stop the government from sending me to SE Asia

Pursuant to another USSC ruling that you don't get to ignore just because you don't like it.

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.

My exercise of my right to keep and bear arms harms no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- that is, its impacts no one.
As such, there's no demonstrable necessity to restrict it.

 

[bripat9643]

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".

Apparently not, because it doesn't mean what you claim it means.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

No fucking no most mass shooters pass background checks. And those that didn't stole them.

 

[Orangecat]

You have a right to defend yourself, no question.

Correct.

And, in those acts you also have an obligation not to contribute to the harm of the innocent.

Incorrect. There is no such obligation. There are only legal consequences.

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. .

Me doing those things does absolutely nothing to help protect the public. You can conjure up straw man scenarios where it may help, but future crimes are the domain of thought police, and not a legal reason to infringe on my natural right to defend myself and mine.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Tissue?

Jerk?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

No fucking no most mass shooters pass background checks. And those that didn't stole them.

Unless the background checks catch all or most or many mass shooters, it isn't worth the lives that would be saved? The inconvenience isn't worth it.

What is wrong with you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unless the background checks catch all or most or many mass shooters, it isn't worth the lives that would be saved? The inconvenience isn't worth it.

What is wrong with you?

Dude background checks have proven that they do not work

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Correct.

Incorrect. There is no such obligation. There are only legal consequences.

Me doing those things does absolutely nothing to help protect the public. You can conjure up straw man scenarios where it may help, but future crimes are the domain of thought police, and not a legal reason to infringe on my natural right to defend myself and mine.

Defend you and yours from what, conjured strawman scenarios?

I've already conceded that we all have a right to defend ourselves. However, nothing about that fact dictates that the 70% who favor reasonable weapon regulations are obligated to tolerate the way you go about defending yourself. Besides, why would you wish to live amongst people with whom you hold so little in common?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Dude background checks have proven that they do not work

Sorry, two kinds of states generally have lower gun violence. The first kind are empty places like Wyoming and North Dakota. The second kind are generally those states with sensible weapon regulations.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry, two kinds of states generally have lower gun violence. The first kind are empty places like Wyoming and North Dakota. The second kind are generally those states with sensible weapon regulations.

Define sensible ?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Defend you and yours from what, conjured strawman scenarios?

I've already conceded that we all have a right to defend ourselves. However, nothing about that fact dictates that the 70% who favor reasonable weapon regulations are obligated to tolerate the way you go about defending yourself. Besides, why would you wish to live amongst people with whom you hold so little in common?

There are 25 states that are Constitutional Carry. That 70% number is a propagandized lie.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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

"Shall not be infringed"

You shouldn't agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions, but you should we willing to look at the facts and join the conversation.

"Well-regulated Militia"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You shouldn't agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions, but you should we willing to look at the facts and join the conversation.

"Well-regulated Militia"

Well regulated means in working order as to be expected.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Define sensible ?

Background checks, limits on certain kinds of combat weapons, the registering and securing of weapons.

Off the top there will be differences of opinion. That said, the facts of what works, and what doesn't, are available for discussion. Reasonable people should be able to sit down and work out rational solutions.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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.

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

You cannot demonstrate the contradiction you claim

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

Again, you insult the ability of the founding fathers to have written exactly what they meant (including the prefatory clause in the 2ndA that clearly introduces the amendment's purpose).

I can and did address what you call a contradiction. If you care to follow the link that I provided in post #298, you'll find what the founding fathers meant by a well-regulated militia. It is not the gibberish written by the activist judge, Scalia.

I can't speak for everyone who seeks weapon regulation. Certainly, there will be those who take things too far - just as there are those on the other side who go too far with defining their rights.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

When you can demonstrate their argument unsound you'll have a point.
We both know you know you cannot, and we both know you will not even try.
Your response will prove me correct.

I'm not attacking the founding father's reasonings. You are. I'm not the one tossing part of what is written in the 2ndA.

Check the link at post #298. What the founding father's meant by a well-regulated militia is on full display.