The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[M14 Shooter]

Your first statement is correct: the 2ndA does not state a guarantee to bear arms except through the archaic mechanism of a militia that does not exist

This is a lie. It says no such thing.

Regarding the incomplete sentence: Not only do lots of people care but they appear to be a majority.

Fallacy: Argumentum ad populum

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I've read the Constitution probably 250 times or more and never noticed the "at all times" clause. Luckily we live in a digital age where you can even do an electronic search for terms or phrases that the brain and the eyes just plain ignore when reading; it can happen to all of us. So I opened the plain text versions of the Constitution, the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist papers, the notes from the Continental Congress and just every document I could find. There must be something missing in my downloaded copies because I never found the phrase "at all times" in any context related top the militia or the right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps you could share your copies where you found such a requirement.

Below I've pasted the two sentences in their entirety because you appear to have taken what I wrote out of context.

I wrote: "I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times - even when not in immediate need. If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger. Where are the regulations that organize it?"

I hedged because I generally dislike absolutes. It simply strikes me that something that is not consistent is not likely well regulated.

I did enjoy your comment about "terms or phrases that the brain and the eyes just plain ignore when reading." Perhaps that's what happened to you when you read the two sentences. If I may, the mind often sees what it expects or wants which is why it's not wise to do your own editing.

There are other explantions but I'll tread lightly.

 

[Orangecat]

Come again?

IQ TEST?

^moron^

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I’ll never own a gun
BUT
I support your right to legally purchase one
Or 100

Thanks, but I don't own a gun at present and have no plans to buy one.

Like you, I'm not opposed to gun ownership. However, I am opposed to the lack of regulation, particularly in urban areas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks, but I don't own a gun at present and have no plans to buy one.

Like you, I'm not opposed to gun ownership. However, I am opposed to the lack of regulation, particularly in urban areas.

Chicago had tons of regulation. It didn't work. Not even the ban. Weird.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

.

All of the things listed above are already against the law and covered by Federal Statute.
So ... Your Society and Civilization in general are already protecting you and your Rights.

.​

Bullshit.

The protection fell on its face in Texas when those nineteen kids were slaughtered. Their young lives might have been saved had a simple background check been required. But background checks are too inconvenient? That, and then there's the conspiracy nuts who fear the government is out to take all their guns.

 

[flan327]

^moron^

MLS

CAPISCH?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bullshit.

The protection fell on its face in Texas when those nineteen kids were slaughtered. Their young lives might have been saved had a simple background check been required. But background checks are too inconvenient? That, and then there's the conspiracy nuts who fear the government is out to take all their guns.

The killer passed a background check.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Chicago had tons of regulation. It didn't work. Not even the ban. Weird.

I can't speak for Chicago.

I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws. Over the last twenty years or more, the per capita murder rate in San Diego is virtually half the national average.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The killer passed a background check.

They do background checks in Texas? I'd like some detail on that.

Didn't he buy his weapons the day (or day after), he was age eligible?

 

[flan327]

I can't speak for Chicago.

I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws. Over the last twenty years or more, the per capita murder rate in San Diego is virtually half the national average.

Good

Every big city has its own unique character and issues

 

[flan327]

They do background checks in Texas? I'd like some detail on that.

Didn't he buy his weapons the day (or day after), he was age eligible?

I think so

IIRC he asked his older sister to buy the weapons the day before his birthday
And she said no

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't speak for Chicago.

I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws. Over the last twenty years or more, the per capita murder rate in San Diego is virtually half the national average.

I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws.

Chicago banned handguns from 1982 to 2010. Didn't end gun crime.

 

[BlackSand]

Bullshit.

The protection fell on its face in Texas when those nineteen kids were slaughtered. Their young lives might have been saved had a simple background check been required. But background checks are too inconvenient? That, and then there's the conspiracy nuts who fear the government is out to take all their guns.

.

Well, we don't need to pretend that society and the civilization you so dearly love is worth a damn when it comes to protecting you.

Background checks aren't necessarily inconvenient, and the shooter in Texas had one conducted when he bought the firearms.
It's not a conspiracy theory when they tell you they are going to do it, start making a list of where they are going to start,
and start passing laws to do exactly that.

.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They do background checks in Texas? I'd like some detail on that.

Didn't he buy his weapons the day (or day after), he was age eligible?

Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.)

Texas is not a point of contact state for the NICS. Texas has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm. As a result, in Texas, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly.1

Background Check Procedures in Texas

Research Texas state laws on background check procedures, including what is regulated and what's not. Find related gun law details from Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence today.

giffords.org

 

[Orangecat]

MLS

CAPISCH?

Still: ^moron^

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

.

Well, we don't need to pretend that society and the civilization you so dearly love is worth a shit when it comes to protecting you.

Background checks aren't necessarily inconvenient, and the shooter in Texas had one conducted when he bought the firearms.
It's not a conspiracy theory when they tell you they are going to do it, start making a list of where they are going to start,
and start passing laws to do exactly that.

.​

Who is they, and do you honestly think Republicans are going to co-operate without safeguards to protect gun rights?

I'm a fairly progressive person as are many of the people I know, and I don't see them inclined to the kind of nonsense about which you are concerned. I sure as hell know that my conservative friends wouldn't sit for it.

This country is in a lot of trouble if we let the lunatic fringe dictate the discourse. I hope we are better than that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This country is in a lot of trouble if we let the lunatic fringe dictate the discourse. I hope we are better than that.

We are better, that's why AOC and the Squad are so whiney.

 

[flan327]

I live in San Diego, CA where we have fairly strict gun laws.

Chicago banned handguns from 1982 to 2010. Didn't end gun crime.

Oh my GLADIOLUS

NOTHING IS GOING TO

END CRIME

 

[woodwork201]

Below I've pasted the two sentences in their entirety because you appear to have taken what I wrote out of context.

I wrote: "I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times - even when not in immediate need. If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger. Where are the regulations that organize it?"

I hedged because I generally dislike absolutes. It simply strikes me that something that is not consistent is not likely well regulated.

I did enjoy your comment about "terms or phrases that the brain and the eyes just plain ignore when reading." Perhaps that's what happened to you when you read the two sentences. If I may, the mind often sees what it expects or wants which is why it's not wise to do your own editing.

There are other explantions but I'll tread lightly.

So you do admit there's no "at all times" clause about the militia in law or the Constitution, right? So what you said in those two sentences, both originally and when you pasted them again, is unfounded because there's nothing that says "at all times".

In fact, there's no requirement that the militia be well-regulated. The 2nd Amendment recognized that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and, in so recognizing, forbade the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. If the government chooses to only sort-of regulate, or even not regulate, the militia during times of peace, that's allowed.

But if the people are disarmed, and should the government need to well-regulate the militia in order to ensure the security of the United States, it would fail because, as the 2nd Amendment states, a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free nation.