What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[Wry Catcher]

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

You seem to be rejecting the fact that the second protects a personal right to bear arms unconnected with the militia. Am I incorrect about that?

That was the opinion of five members of the Supreme Court, four members did not support Scalia's majority opinion. So, let's not lie by omission, much like Dred Scott, foolish SC decisions can be repealed.

 

[deltex1]

The end goal should be to carry your gun, concealed, with one in the chamber. Should the need arise fire that round into his belly. Then two in the back of his head when he falls. Ooooooooorah.....yo!

 

[Rustic]

I don't like the government knowing what guns I own. I can buy any number of consumer products without having to inform the government of my purchases.

That's why I prefer people be registered as an eligible gun buyer the exact same way we register as an eligible voter.

I prove I am eligible to vote, and the government might know I voted when I'm checked off on the list when I vote, but the government does not know for whom I voted. This privacy of the ballot box assures we are not coerced into voting for someone.

I prove I am eligible to buy guns, and the government might know I bought something when the gun retailer checks the system to see if I am on the approved list, but the government doesn't know what I bought, or how much I bought.

That is the system I would like to see.

I would even go a step further, Every firearm should be 100% tax-deductible with no registration required...

How are you going to claim your deduction without telling the government what guns you own?

And I am very much against deductions, credits, and exemptions. They are government gifts which cause higher tax rates and deficit spending.

I meant no tax whatsoever on the firearm...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Empowering individuals to defend their life, liberty, and property

That must give comfort to the parents of those five and six year old children slaughtered at S.H. Elem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

Really, if by this statement ("The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st") you believe no law which limits speech or the exercise of religion shall not be infringed?
Thus it is fine to yell fire in a crowded theater, use calumny to discredit and or harm others, allow religious orders to practice animal and human sacrifices or to require the people to apply for a permit to assemble?

We both know you have neither the mastery of the subject nor the intellectual honesty to have a meaningful conversation on this particular branch of the topic.
Proof?
-Libel and slander are not protected by the 1st because they directly and unjustly cause harm to others; laws against libel and slander to not violate the 1st because you have no right to unjustifiably harm others.
-Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st because it unjustly places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger; laws against falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater do not violate the 1st because you have no right to unjustly place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
And so:
Specifically, how does simple ownership of a firearm and simple possession of that firearm in hour house harm anyone?
Specifically, how does simple ownership of a firearm and simple possession of that firearm on your house place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?
Specifically, when reading the 2nd with exactly the same parameters as the 1st, and absent a sound demonstration of either undue harm or undue immediate danger, what restrictions are constitutionally viable on the simple ownership of a firearm and possession of same within the home?

I await your ignorant and/or dishonest non-response to these questions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The end goal should be to carry your gun, concealed, with one in the chamber. Should the need arise fire that round into his belly. Then two in the back of his head when he falls. Ooooooooorah.....yo!

I suggest you read Camus' The Stranger and see how well that worked out for Mersualt. You'd get and deserve the needle for doing such a crime.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

Really, if by this statement ("The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st") you believe no law which limits speech or the exercise of religion shall not be infringed?
Thus it is fine to yell fire in a crowded theater, use calumny to discredit and or harm others, allow religious orders to practice animal and human sacrifices or to require the people to apply for a permit to assemble?

We both know you have neither the mastery of the subject nor the intellectual honesty to have a meaningful conversation on this particular branch of the topic.
Proof?
-Libel and slander are not protected by the 1st because they directly and unjustly cause harm to others; laws against libel and slander to not violate the 1st because you have no right to unjustifiably harm others.
-Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st because it unjustly places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger; laws against falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater do not violate the 1st because you have no right to unjustly place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
And so:
Specifically, how does simple ownership of a firearm and simple possession of that firearm in hour house harm anyone?
Specifically, how does simple ownership of a firearm and simple possession of that firearm on your house place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?
Specifically, when reading the 2nd with exactly the same parameters as the 1st, and absent a sound demonstration of either undue harm or undue immediate danger, what restrictions are constitutionally viable on the simple ownership of a firearm and possession of same within the home?

I await your ignorant and/or dishonest non-response to these questions.

Methinks you are brain dead. You've have contradicted yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Empowering individuals to defend their life, liberty, and property

That must give comfort to the parents of those five and six year old children slaughtered at S.H. Elem.

Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Why do you not understand that argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy, and that reasoned, thinking people will never be swayed by fallacious arguments?

 

[deltex1]

The end goal should be to carry your gun, concealed, with one in the chamber. Should the need arise fire that round into his belly. Then two in the back of his head when he falls. Ooooooooorah.....yo!

I suggest you read Camus' The Stranger and see how well that worked out for Mersualt. You'd get and deserve the needle for doing such a crime.

Mersualt was not a Texas resident....yo.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

Really, if by this statement ("The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st") you believe no law which limits speech or the exercise of religion shall not be infringed?
Thus it is fine to yell fire in a crowded theater, use calumny to discredit and or harm others, allow religious orders to practice animal and human sacrifices or to require the people to apply for a permit to assemble?

We both know you have neither the mastery of the subject nor the intellectual honesty to have a meaningful conversation on this particular branch of the topic.
Proof?
-Libel and slander are not protected by the 1st because they directly and unjustly cause harm to others; laws against libel and slander to not violate the 1st because you have no right to unjustifiably harm others.
-Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st because it unjustly places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger; laws against falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater do not violate the 1st because you have no right to unjustly place people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
And so:
Specifically, how does simple ownership of a firearm and simple possession of that firearm in hour house harm anyone?
Specifically, how does simple ownership of a firearm and simple possession of that firearm on your house place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?
Specifically, when reading the 2nd with exactly the same parameters as the 1st, and absent a sound demonstration of either undue harm or undue immediate danger, what restrictions are constitutionally viable on the simple ownership of a firearm and possession of same within the home?
I await your ignorant and/or dishonest non-response to these questions.

Methinks you are brain dead. You've have contradicted yourself.

Thank you for proving that you know you have neither the mastery of the subject nor the intellectual honesty to have a meaningful conversation on this particular branch of the topic.
Just like I said.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
Common sense is not common in those with a gun fetish:

Or found in any of the restrictions you seek.

BULLSHIT

 

[Jarlaxle]

I like how Mass. Does it . gun safety class and background check . You get your license from the local PD. ( who would better know if the guy is a psycho). Buying n selling works a lot like cars when u register the transaction .

Surprisingly enough , the carry laws are pretty liberal in Mass .

I think it works well . Gun crime is low in our state , the "illegal guns " usually come from loose gun law states .

Bullshit. In Massachusetts, the only way you can generally get a permit to carry is if you are "connected". Some sheriffs simply reject ALL applications, and have publicly stated so!

Do you have your license ?

I do not live in Massachusetts.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don't buy into "gun control" I do buy into having to prove you have a right to exercise a particular right

In keeping with interpreting the 2nd with the exact same parameters as we interpret the 1st....
Do you knot understand this is a form of prior restraint and violates the constitution under virtually every circumstance?

To me, proving you are eligible to buy a gun is exactly no different than proving you are eligible to vote.

Non sequitur.
Voter verification protects the rights of those who seek to exercise their right to vote.

Nope. Every argument in favor of Voter ID has been about preventing fraud. It has not been about protecting those who are eligible to vote.

They are one and the same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Common sense is not common in those with a gun fetish:

Or found in any of the restrictions you seek.

BULLSHIT

Truth hurts, eh?

 

[FA_Q2]

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

You seem to be rejecting the fact that the second protects a personal right to bear arms unconnected with the militia. Am I incorrect about that?

That was the opinion of five members of the Supreme Court, four members did not support Scalia's majority opinion. So, let's not lie by omission, much like Dred Scott, foolish SC decisions can be repealed.

That is not a lie by omission in any respect of the concept. Further, no one here has presented anything even remotely close to a reasoned argument of why the ruling of the 5 justices is incorrect. The arguments against the second are based almost entirely around ignoring the actual wording of the amendment in order to push what they want it to mean. The answer has always been rather simple - amend the constitution if you want to take away a protected right. Counting on the court to twist it into something that it is not is sad.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and. Ammo

 

[M14 Shooter]

That was the opinion of five members of the Supreme Court, four members did not support Scalia's majority opinion. So, let's not lie by omission, much like Dred Scott, foolish SC decisions can be repealed.

5-4 decisions? Decisions can be repealed?
Like Obergefell v. Hodges ?
Like NFIB v. Sebelius ?
I'm sure you'll have to look those up.

Here's the fact, Jack:
Until Heller is overturned, it stands, it means the 2nd means something you don't like, and the more you cry abut it the more I laugh at you.

 

[kaz]

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

You seem to be rejecting the fact that the second protects a personal right to bear arms unconnected with the militia. Am I incorrect about that?

That was the opinion of five members of the Supreme Court, four members did not support Scalia's majority opinion. So, let's not lie by omission, much like Dred Scott, foolish SC decisions can be repealed.

Yes, the lierals didn't agree with dred scott

 

[Little-Acorn]

Empowering individuals to defend their life, liberty, and property

That must give comfort to the parents of those five and six year old children slaughtered at S.H. Elem.

How much comfort did parents get, whose kids or other loved ones learned or worked at places with armed guards, which most insane murderers avoid and never commit their crimes?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Logical Fallacy: The Slippery slope argument is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

TRANSLATION: I am going to ignore as hard as I can, the fact that governments have disarmed their people and then massacred them, time and again, throughout history. Because it's way too strong an argument for the right of the people to keep and bear arms to never be infringed, and I can't refute it. My only hope is to pretend it was never pointed out, and act like there's no pattern here even though the pattern is clear.