The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

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

If I understand correctly, Texas Law does not require but Federal does require Texas Dealers to perform a background check. I suppose if I were in charge, I'd like to be more familiar with the specifics involved in a background check.

You learn something every day. Thanks.

I'll admit that there it is simply no way to stop all of the violence. Suffice that we make an effort that it makes a dent. While I boasted earlier about the low murder rate in San Diego, the reality is that the difference is a matter of only about two murders per 100,000 people. Not to make light of saving two lives.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

.

"They" are the Assclowns on Capitol Hill ... I need not make any other distinctions.

I am a Classical Liberal, and your political inclinations do not change the words or meaning of the Constitution.
It doesn't matter what you think is reasonable if the Federal Government hasn't been granted the Power to do it ...
And it doesn't matter how many people you can get to agree with you.

If you would like things to be different, then you are going to have to take it to the States and the People
in order to amend or repeal a portion of the Constitution.
Ask yourself why "they" and you haven't done that.

That is what is required and there is a process defined in the Constitution for doing just that.

.​

 

[woodwork201]

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?

You really have no business in this conversation if you're that ignorant of gun law in the United States. When people who know absolutely nothing on the topic call for more gun regulations the anti-gunners use that as justification.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I understand correctly, Texas Law does not require but Federal does require Texas Dealers to perform a background check. I suppose if I were in charge, I'd like to be more familiar with the specifics involved in a background check.

You learn something every day. Thanks.

I'll admit that there it is simply no way to stop all of the violence. Suffice that we make an effort that it makes a dent. While I boasted earlier about the low murder rate in San Diego, the reality is that the difference is a matter of only about two murders per 100,000 people. Not to make light of saving two lives.

If I understand correctly, Texas Law does not require but Federal does

And he passed it.

I'll admit that there it is simply no way to stop all of the violence. Suffice that we make an effort that it makes a dent.

Didn't seem to make a dent in Chicago, banning handguns for 28 years.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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.

You are ignoring almost everything I just wrote. I never suggested such a clause existed, and yet you make an effort to make it sound as if I did. Why?

You are also ignoring the prefatory clause in the 2ndA by use of a nearly incoherent rendering of its grammar.

As to what I bolded: Given your logic, it appears that you'd be okay with disbanding the standing military until the next war pops up? What a load of crap.

I gave you a civil answer despite recognizing that you were lighting fires with straw. Perhaps a different broach is in order. If you can't conduct honest discourse, why not shit and fall back in it.

 

[woodwork201]

You are ignoring almost everything I just wrote. I never suggested such a clause existed, and yet you make an effort to make it sound as if I did. Why?

You are also ignoring the prefatory clause in the 2ndA by use of a nearly incoherent rendering of its grammar.

As to what I bolded: Given your logic, it appears that you'd be okay with disbanding the standing military until the next war pops up? What a load of crap.

I gave you a civil answer despite recognizing that you were lighting fires with straw. Perhaps a different broach is in order. If you can't conduct honest discourse, why not shit and fall back in it.

If you meant no implication that such a clause existed then from where do you get the idea that the militia must be ready at all times or it doesn't count? And my interpretation of the prefatory clause is perfect. If you'd care to debate it, then challenge it.

Where did I suggest disbanding the standing army? That's a completely dishonest response - a lie, even. Yes, what you wrote about disbanding the standing army is a load of crap - but that's not what you meant. What you meant was to make up a lie about what I said and then call what I didn't say a load of crap.

So you're proving to be not just ignorant but dishonest along with it. And you talk about me conducting honest discourse? Amazing.

 

[2aguy]

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.

A mandatory, Federal background check was not only required, it was actually done.....

That you don't know or understand this shows you really don't know what you are posting about.....

 

[2aguy]

You are ignoring almost everything I just wrote. I never suggested such a clause existed, and yet you make an effort to make it sound as if I did. Why?

You are also ignoring the prefatory clause in the 2ndA by use of a nearly incoherent rendering of its grammar.

As to what I bolded: Given your logic, it appears that you'd be okay with disbanding the standing military until the next war pops up? What a load of crap.

I gave you a civil answer despite recognizing that you were lighting fires with straw. Perhaps a different broach is in order. If you can't conduct honest discourse, why not shit and fall back in it.

The "prefatory clause," is the dependent, not independent clause, so it doesn't have importance to the actual meaning of the sentence.

 

[Esdraelon]

Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

Uh-huh... "HAVING COME, TAKE" Let's see how that works out for ya...

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The "prefatory clause," is the dependent, not independent clause, so it doesn't have importance to the actual meaning of the sentence.

Can you point me to a textbook in grammar stipulating that a prefatory clause has no meaning in a complex sentence? Your take on the impact of a prefatory clause, that it imparts no meaning to the sentence, is silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. A prefatory clause states the purpose as if to say "because".

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

If you meant no implication that such a clause existed then from where do you get the idea that the militia must be ready at all times or it doesn't count? And my interpretation of the prefatory clause is perfect. If you'd care to debate it, then challenge it.

I already explained that my statement as to "ready at all times" was simply based on what demand being well-regulated would naturally impart. I never said anything about a "ready at all times" CLAUSE other that addressing your claim. What both of us wrote is all here in black and white. Kindly go back and paste where I used that terminology prior to you making your dishonest claim - or shove the charge up your ass.

Your interpretation of the function of a prefatory clause is not only imperfect, it's nonsensical. How in the hell does a grammatical device that stipulates the purpose of the sentence not contribute meaning to the sentence?

Where did I suggest disbanding the standing army? That's a completely dishonest response - a lie, even. Yes, what you wrote about disbanding the standing army is a load of crap - but that's not what you meant. What you meant was to make up a lie about what I said and then call what I didn't say a load of crap.

I introduced my charge with "based on your logic". Such was neither dishonest nor a lie. Rather, it simply applied the silly logic you used in shutting down the militia to shutting down the standing military.

So you're proving to be not just ignorant but dishonest along with it. And you talk about me conducting honest discourse? Amazing.

Suggest you attempt to prove the above on merit of premise, premise, conclusion. Construct s syllogism and let me know where it leads you.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

View attachment 659680

I have to admit, that's funny. Especially the suggestion that George applied no regulations to the conduct of his army.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

A mandatory, Federal background check was not only required, it was actually done.....

That you don't know or understand this shows you really don't know what you are posting about.....

Well, I'll concede that I haven't purchased a firearm if you'll confess you flunked grammar.

 

[woodwork201]

I already explained that my statement as to "ready at all times" was simply based on what demand being well-regulated would naturally impart. I never said anything about a "ready at all times" CLAUSE other that addressing your claim. What both of us wrote is all here in black and white. Kindly go back and paste where I used that terminology prior to you making your dishonest claim - or shove the charge up your ass.

Your interpretation of the function of a prefatory clause is not only imperfect, it's nonsensical. How in the hell does a grammatical device that stipulates the purpose of the sentence not contribute meaning to the sentence?


I introduced my charge with "based on your logic". Such was neither dishonest nor a lie. Rather, it simply applied the silly logic you used in shutting down the militia to shutting down the standing military.


Suggest you attempt to prove the above on merit of premise, premise, conclusion. Construct s syllogism and let me know where it leads you.

The militia isn't shut down. It's never shut down. And a lie by implication is a lie just as much as an explicit lie. And an ignoramus is an still an ignoramus.

And if the prefatory clause justifies the the operative clause, and if the prefatory clause is part of the amendment, then until the Constitution is amended to say that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state then both the prefatory and the operative clauses are in force.

The Constitution states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Then nothing Congress, modern enemies, the President, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff can do that, as far as the security of the United States of America is concerned, changes that. Once again: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Slice it any way your little heart desires, it requires a constitutional amendment to legally infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[flan327]

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.

You need help

 

[woodwork201]

Can you point me to a textbook in grammar stipulating that a prefatory clause has no meaning in a complex sentence? Your take on the impact of a prefatory clause, that it imparts no meaning to the sentence, is silly. Nothing could be further from the truth. A prefatory clause states the purpose as if to say "because".

Apples are sweet, I like apples.

Do I like apples only because they're sweet? Or could I also like them because they're healthy? Do I dislike Granny Smith apples? Moron.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The militia isn't shut down. It's never shut down. And a lie by implication is a lie just as much as an explicit lie. And an ignoramus is an still an ignoramus.

But, but, you stated that it would be okay to shut down the militia until there's another war. What's next, the standing army, the navy, Top gun?

And if the prefatory clause justifies the the operative clause, and if the prefatory clause is part of the amendment, then until the Constitution is amended to say that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state then both the prefatory and the operative clauses are in force.

I think you better read what Scalia actually wrote. The Heller decision is not what you project, not even close.

Well, if the prefatory clause, as you suggest, is still in force, where are the fucking regulations? I want to know the name of your Commanding Officer so I can ask that you to be relieved of your duty.

The Constitution states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Then nothing Congress, modern enemies, the President, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff can do that, as far as the security of the United States of America is concerned, changes that. Once again: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Slice it any way your little heart desires, it requires a constitutional amendment to legally infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Good grief, there is no militia, well-regulated or otherwise. When was the last time the militia showed its face? Wait, I could be wrong. Was that the militia that Trump called to action on Jan 6?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Apples are sweet, I like apples.

Do I like apples only because they're sweet? Or could I also like them because they're healthy? Do I dislike Granny Smith apples? Moron.

The above is not a syllogism. Let me help.

All men have dicks.
Woodie is a man.
Therefore, Woodie has a dick.

Of course, in the example just given, the logic is called to question because Woodie is a Dick.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, if the prefatory clause, as you suggest, is still in force, where are the fucking regulations? I want to know the name of your Commanding Officer so I can ask that you to be relieved of your duty.

If the 2nd Amendment said, only the militia is allowed to keep and bear arms, you might have a point.