Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All this fuss over a 'well regulated militia'...
Why are we treating the 'militia' rationale as the only rationale that is valid?
It's not.
It is merely the only rationale that was articulated at the time...
There were - and are - others...
The Right to Bear Arms exists...
It was born using the 'militia' argument as its metaphorical baptism sponsor...
People use(d) their firearms to protect their homes...
People use(d) theri firearms to protect their persons...
People use(d) their firearms to hunt game...
People use(d) their firearms for target-shooting and sport...
The way some people harp on the 'militia' argument, it is as if they believe that the Second was actually written to say...
"The citizens of the United States use their 'arms' to participate in a militia, and to defend their homes, and to defend their persons, and to hunt game, and to engage in sport, and, for these reasons, their Right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed, however, in future, if the time ever comes when a citizen-militia is no longer needed, then the use of 'arms' by the citizenry in connection with defense of home, defense of person, hunting, and sport, shall be deemed insufficient reason to allow them to keep their 'arms', and the government may then revoke said Right to Bear Arms."
But that's not what the Constitution says.
Even though that's what the most grasping of the Gun-Grabber crowd wants.
It's also not something that the citizens of the United States are going to let them get away with.
Guaranteed.
All this fuss over a 'well regulated militia'...
Why are we treating the 'militia' rationale as the only rationale that is valid?
It's not.
It is merely the only rationale that was articulated at the time...
There were - and are - others...
The Right to Bear Arms exists...
It was born using the 'militia' argument as its metaphorical baptism sponsor...
People use(d) their firearms to protect their homes...
People use(d) theri firearms to protect their persons...
People use(d) their firearms to hunt game...
People use(d) their firearms for target-shooting and sport...
The way some people harp on the 'militia' argument, it is as if they believe that the Second was actually written to say...
"The citizens of the United States use their 'arms' to participate in a militia, and to defend their homes, and to defend their persons, and to hunt game, and to engage in sport, and, for these reasons, their Right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed, however, in future, if the time ever comes when a citizen-militia is no longer needed, then the use of 'arms' by the citizenry in connection with defense of home, defense of person, hunting, and sport, shall be deemed insufficient reason to allow them to keep their 'arms', and the government may then revoke said Right to Bear Arms."
But that's not what the Constitution says.
Even though that's what the most grasping of the Gun-Grabber crowd wants.
It's also not something that the citizens of the United States are going to let them get away with.
Guaranteed.
You forget a few:
People use firearms to commit robbery;
People use firearms to commit murder;
People us firearms to make a statement (see mass murder);
Why do people carry firearms in public places?
Why do people freak out when any form of gun control is brought up?
You're last statement is an opinion of course, a referandum on gun control would be interesting.
All this fuss over a 'well regulated militia'...
Why are we treating the 'militia' rationale as the only rationale that is valid?
It's not.
It is merely the only rationale that was articulated at the time...
There were - and are - others...
The Right to Bear Arms exists...
It was born using the 'militia' argument as its metaphorical baptism sponsor...
People use(d) their firearms to protect their homes...
People use(d) theri firearms to protect their persons...
People use(d) their firearms to hunt game...
People use(d) their firearms for target-shooting and sport...
The way some people harp on the 'militia' argument, it is as if they believe that the Second was actually written to say...
"The citizens of the United States use their 'arms' to participate in a militia, and to defend their homes, and to defend their persons, and to hunt game, and to engage in sport, and, for these reasons, their Right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed, however, in future, if the time ever comes when a citizen-militia is no longer needed, then the use of 'arms' by the citizenry in connection with defense of home, defense of person, hunting, and sport, shall be deemed insufficient reason to allow them to keep their 'arms', and the government may then revoke said Right to Bear Arms."
But that's not what the Constitution says.
Even though that's what the most grasping of the Gun-Grabber crowd wants.
It's also not something that the citizens of the United States are going to let them get away with.
Guaranteed.
You forget a few:
People use firearms to commit robbery;
People use firearms to commit murder;
People us firearms to make a statement (see mass murder);
Why do people carry firearms in public places?
Why do people freak out when any form of gun control is brought up?
You're last statement is an opinion of course, a referandum on gun control would be interesting.
People use pens to commit fraud. (Robbery)
People use pens and the media to begin wars (remember "yellow journalism"?).
People use pens to violate other peoples civil rights.
People use pens to arbitrarily toss people they don't like in prison.
People use pens to write legislation that allows them to steal other peoples property for their own personal profit.
See how that works nimrod?
I did not forget anything.All this fuss over a 'well regulated militia'...
Why are we treating the 'militia' rationale as the only rationale that is valid?
It's not.
It is merely the only rationale that was articulated at the time...
There were - and are - others...
The Right to Bear Arms exists...
It was born using the 'militia' argument as its metaphorical baptism sponsor...
People use(d) their firearms to protect their homes...
People use(d) theri firearms to protect their persons...
People use(d) their firearms to hunt game...
People use(d) their firearms for target-shooting and sport...
The way some people harp on the 'militia' argument, it is as if they believe that the Second was actually written to say...
"The citizens of the United States use their 'arms' to participate in a militia, and to defend their homes, and to defend their persons, and to hunt game, and to engage in sport, and, for these reasons, their Right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed, however, in future, if the time ever comes when a citizen-militia is no longer needed, then the use of 'arms' by the citizenry in connection with defense of home, defense of person, hunting, and sport, shall be deemed insufficient reason to allow them to keep their 'arms', and the government may then revoke said Right to Bear Arms."
But that's not what the Constitution says.
Even though that's what the most grasping of the Gun-Grabber crowd wants.
It's also not something that the citizens of the United States are going to let them get away with.
Guaranteed.
You forget a few:
People use firearms to commit robbery;
People use firearms to commit murder;
People us firearms to make a statement (see mass murder)
Because they can?...Why do people carry firearms in public places?...
I am for a comprehensive nationwide gun-control myself....Why do people freak out when any form of gun control is brought up?...
Indeed....You're last statement is an opinion of course, a referandum on gun control would be interesting.
[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION] It's a prefatory clause. Not a part of the active part of the sentence.And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?
You did not answer the question."arbitrarily"? You're not very bright, are you?I see.Nice try dipshit. I agreed that the First Amendment enfringes on the right of Religion and of Speech and such laws are not a violation of the COTUS. Such enfringments include defamation, bomb threats and yelling fire to create a panic; human sacrafice and assembling in a governemnt bullding with a firearm.
So, to be clear -- If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, the right to free speech would NOT be infringed?
What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?
And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?
What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?
And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?
I get it: You're trying to pretend sensible people "ignore" something they aren't ignoring, and then you bash them for it.
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
If later on, it was somehow proven that an armed and capable populace was NOT necessary, the 2nd would still say that the right can't be taken away or restricted.
Now do you finally understand what everyone else has known for years?
You forget a few:
People use firearms to commit robbery;
People use firearms to commit murder;
People us firearms to make a statement (see mass murder);
Why do people carry firearms in public places?
Why do people freak out when any form of gun control is brought up?
You're last statement is an opinion of course, a referandum on gun control would be interesting.
People use pens to commit fraud. (Robbery)
People use pens and the media to begin wars (remember "yellow journalism"?).
People use pens to violate other peoples civil rights.
People use pens to arbitrarily toss people they don't like in prison.
People use pens to write legislation that allows them to steal other peoples property for their own personal profit.
See how that works nimrod?
Nimrod? Well fuck you asshole. How many pens did it require to kill 20 five and six year olds? Apples and oranges dipshit - grow up and take that pen and shuff it.
BTW moron, Fraud is not Robbery. Robbery is to take someone's property by force or fear.
I did not forget anything.All this fuss over a 'well regulated militia'...
Why are we treating the 'militia' rationale as the only rationale that is valid?
It's not.
It is merely the only rationale that was articulated at the time...
There were - and are - others...
The Right to Bear Arms exists...
It was born using the 'militia' argument as its metaphorical baptism sponsor...
People use(d) their firearms to protect their homes...
People use(d) theri firearms to protect their persons...
People use(d) their firearms to hunt game...
People use(d) their firearms for target-shooting and sport...
The way some people harp on the 'militia' argument, it is as if they believe that the Second was actually written to say...
"The citizens of the United States use their 'arms' to participate in a militia, and to defend their homes, and to defend their persons, and to hunt game, and to engage in sport, and, for these reasons, their Right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed, however, in future, if the time ever comes when a citizen-militia is no longer needed, then the use of 'arms' by the citizenry in connection with defense of home, defense of person, hunting, and sport, shall be deemed insufficient reason to allow them to keep their 'arms', and the government may then revoke said Right to Bear Arms."
But that's not what the Constitution says.
Even though that's what the most grasping of the Gun-Grabber crowd wants.
It's also not something that the citizens of the United States are going to let them get away with.
Guaranteed.
You forget a few:
People use firearms to commit robbery;
People use firearms to commit murder;
People us firearms to make a statement (see mass murder)
People were using firearms to do those things in the late 18th when the Constitution was adopted, as well.
Didn't stop the Founding Fathers from ensuring that the Right to Bear Arms was safeguarded, though.
Because they can?
Because they feel like it?
Because it amuses them to do so?
What is that to you?
I am for a comprehensive nationwide gun-control myself....Why do people freak out when any form of gun control is brought up?...
I do not freak out; neither do most others, I suspect.
However, a great many resist any form of gun-control.
Why?
Because you give Government an inch, and they'll take a mile?
Indeed....You're last statement is an opinion of course, a referandum on gun control would be interesting.
Well-formed opinion, however, given that 1/3 of the voting public owns firearms, according to a 2013 Pew Research study, and given that much of the rest of the country is against anything that takes power away from The People and gives it to The Government.
A majority might very well be in favor of some kind of improvements in gun-control, but not a repudiation of the Right to Bear Arms, and nothing overly restrictive.
The more rabid elements of the Gun-Grabber crowd are going to have to step aside and let saner and more realistic hearts and minds steer their side of the conversation, in order to obtain even the slightest traction and street-cred with the Gun Rights side of the fence.
You're going to need the COOPERATION of the Gun Rights crowd in order to make any headway whatsoever, and your long-range goals, motivations, strategies, tactics, mechanisms, and leadership are going to have to change - dramatically - before you have a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining even a drop of cooperation from Gun Rights folks.
Trouble is, you (your side of the aisle, in this context) don't have it in you, to do that.
So...
We continue to plod along, with no change in sight...
...which infringes on the rights of the law abiding and does nothing to prevent those people fom getting guns.Actually I'm a gun owner. I do believe a sober, sane and the non criminal should have the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm. Sadly, too many who are not sober, sane or law abiding are able to easily own possess and have in their custody and control a gun. Thus I support gun control....
That you for the clarification. That was actually well-said....Actually I'm a gun owner. I do believe a sober, sane and the non criminal should have the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm. Sadly, too many who are not sober, sane or law abiding are able to easily own possess and have in their custody and control a gun. Thus I support gun control; I don't support gun confiscation unless the gun owner is proven to be a drunk or addict, convicted of a crime of violence - misdemeanor or felony - or civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.
That you for the clarification. That was actually well-said....Actually I'm a gun owner. I do believe a sober, sane and the non criminal should have the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm. Sadly, too many who are not sober, sane or law abiding are able to easily own possess and have in their custody and control a gun. Thus I support gun control; I don't support gun confiscation unless the gun owner is proven to be a drunk or addict, convicted of a crime of violence - misdemeanor or felony - or civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.
People use pens to commit fraud. (Robbery)
People use pens and the media to begin wars (remember "yellow journalism"?).
People use pens to violate other peoples civil rights.
People use pens to arbitrarily toss people they don't like in prison.
People use pens to write legislation that allows them to steal other peoples property for their own personal profit.
See how that works nimrod?
Nimrod? Well fuck you asshole. How many pens did it require to kill 20 five and six year olds? Apples and oranges dipshit - grow up and take that pen and shuff it.
BTW moron, Fraud is not Robbery. Robbery is to take someone's property by force or fear.
Fraud is akin to robbery. After all, the victim has lost whatever it was to an illegal action. At least if the asshole was trying to rob me I could shoot the asshole first now couldn't I? In cases of fraud you're usually just fucked.
It took one pen to order the deaths of millions so your point is obviously a failure. And the point was to compare the First vs. the Second Amendment. How unsurprising that a public servant, who's main claim to fame is you passed the public employee test, doesn't understand that.
Let me guess, you were one of the morons standing around watching the poor guy drown off of Alameda when you couldn't figure out how to wade out into the surf.
"Police and firefighters stood on a California beach and watched as a suicidal man waded into the San Francisco Bay and drowned in the surf.
The body of Raymond Zack was finally pulled from the 54-degree water by a passerby as local fire officials blamed budget cuts for their inability to save the man."
Read more: California man drowns himself in San Francisco Bay while emergency responders stand by and watch - NY Daily News
What part of that was unconstitutional?That you for the clarification. That was actually well-said....Actually I'm a gun owner. I do believe a sober, sane and the non criminal should have the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm. Sadly, too many who are not sober, sane or law abiding are able to easily own possess and have in their custody and control a gun. Thus I support gun control; I don't support gun confiscation unless the gun owner is proven to be a drunk or addict, convicted of a crime of violence - misdemeanor or felony - or civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.
And unconstitutional.
And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?
We don't ignore it, the 2nd provides two distinct rights. One to the States to maintain militias at their discretion and the individual right to keep and bear arms.
You on the other hand like to claim incorrectly that there is only one right and that it belongs to the States.
So, to be clear -- If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected to prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, the right to free speech would NOT be infringed?Nimrod? Well fuck you asshole. How many pens did it require to kill 20 five and six year olds? Apples and oranges dipshit - grow up and take that pen and shuff it.
BTW moron, Fraud is not Robbery. Robbery is to take someone's property by force or fear.
Fraud is akin to robbery. After all, the victim has lost whatever it was to an illegal action. At least if the asshole was trying to rob me I could shoot the asshole first now couldn't I? In cases of fraud you're usually just fucked.
It took one pen to order the deaths of millions so your point is obviously a failure. And the point was to compare the First vs. the Second Amendment. How unsurprising that a public servant, who's main claim to fame is you passed the public employee test, doesn't understand that.
Let me guess, you were one of the morons standing around watching the poor guy drown off of Alameda when you couldn't figure out how to wade out into the surf.
"Police and firefighters stood on a California beach and watched as a suicidal man waded into the San Francisco Bay and drowned in the surf.
The body of Raymond Zack was finally pulled from the 54-degree water by a passerby as local fire officials blamed budget cuts for their inability to save the man."
Read more: California man drowns himself in San Francisco Bay while emergency responders stand by and watch - NY Daily News
Fraud is akin to robbery? You're one of those who can't ever admit to being wrong. Do you also believe petty theft is also akin to robbery?
My point was a failure? You really are a moron. Not one five or six year old was murdered by a pen, they were shot to death with a gun. Or is a pen akin to a gun in your pea brain?
I remember that incident, a black eye to be sure on Alameda Fire; FDNY lost how many 'civil servants' on Sept 11, 2001? How many NYPD, Harbor Police lost their lives that day?
Only a real stupid asshole - that be you - would point out such a failure when it is common knowledge that first responders willing go into harms way everyday.
Only in some mutant form of English.And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?
We don't ignore it, the 2nd provides two distinct rights. One to the States to maintain militias at their discretion and the individual right to keep and bear arms.
You on the other hand like to claim incorrectly that there is only one right and that it belongs to the States.
"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."
Where is the "and" part in that? The subject is "a well regulated militia".
Only in some mutant form of English.We don't ignore it, the 2nd provides two distinct rights. One to the States to maintain militias at their discretion and the individual right to keep and bear arms.
You on the other hand like to claim incorrect or that there is only one right and that it belongs to the States.
"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.""
Where is the "and" part in that? The subject is "a well regulated militia".
But, even if so, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Not the milita, the people.
And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?
We don't ignore it, the 2nd provides two distinct rights. One to the States to maintain militias at their discretion and the individual right to keep and bear arms.
You on the other hand like to claim incorrectly that there is only one right and that it belongs to the States.
"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."
Where is the "and" part in that?
You just read shit how you want it.
