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.
It currently would be unconstitutional because it says "the people" when talking about allowing the militia to keep arms. This is because we've drifted away from the original intended meaning both socially and judicially. What I'm proposing is an amendment to make it constitutional. This is the totally constitutionally valid way of changing the document.The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unrelated to militia service – meaning such a prerequisite to possessing a firearm would be un-Constitutional.
Currently they are, yes. This is not okay. To understand why, imagine that you're walking down the street when a guy pulls out a gun and starts firing indiscriminately. Another guy, thinking he's a super badass ultrahero, pulls out his gun, aims at the killer, and accidentally hits multiple bystanders before being shot in the face by his target. This has happened before. It would be less likely to happen if he actually had any idea what the fuck he was doing. A good way to ensure that would be to give him standardized, high quality training for the scenarios he wants to be prepared to resolve. The issue isn't concealed carry. It's keeping concealed carrying people from posing more of a danger to you and me than to violent criminals.Private citizens are perfectly capable of exercising their Second Amendment right absent some sort of formal 'training,' and that can be applied to carrying a concealed firearm as well.
What documented evidence do you need? I would like this to pursue a proper legislative end of passing an amendment rewriting the Second Amendment for clarification in a way that keeps both sides happy. Conservatives can keep their guns. Liberals have less reason to fear armed psychopaths every time they go outside.When government seeks to place restrictions or limitations on a Constitutional right, such measures must be rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.
Firearm regulatory policy that meets the above requirements will likely pass Constitutional muster – those that don't, won't.
You don't think there's evidence that military training makes people more proficient marksmen?For example, to require a firearm owner to receive 'training' as a condition to exercising his Second Amendment right is in no way rational, that absent 'training' a gun owner 'might' have an 'accident' is not consistent with fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence – that a citizen 'might' abuse his rights is not justification to manifest an undue burden to him exercising that right; there is no evidence that 'training' will have the desired effect of preventing 'accidents,' and consequently such a measure pursues no proper legislative end, rendering it un-Constitutional.
This is very true. There both the gun trained on innocent people and the gun trained on the former are being wielded by people. If we're going to kill the first person - which is not what I would prefer but what conservatives and the gun lobby seem to want - then at least make sure the first shot by megahero hits him and not a random kid twenty feet to the left.You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
What the fuck? Who said anything about cartoons?The problem is you get your world view from cartoons and comedy shows.
I'm reading the full text and accepting that it means what it says it means. I quoted it in the OP if you ever wonder what it actually says.First, the basis of your argument is wrong. The second also says 'the right of the people'. How that gets constantly filtered from the reptilian leftist brain is an amazing thing.
You would need to enlist into your state's militia, swear to defend your state in the case of foreign invasion, and learn when and how to shoot. That's about it. I can understand if you're afraid to be pressed into service against foreign and domestic enemies should the need arise. I'm sure many others are not.Plus, it is no longer a right if we need state permission and a certificate. It would then be like driving, a privilege if you do xyz.
Okay. So let's say Wisconsin decides to declare martial law and use its SDF to crack down on its people. Do you really think the federal government is just going to sit back and allow a governor to declare himself an independent dictator?Additionally, use of a militia by the state can be a bad thing if the state should happen to want to bring its own citizens under control. Read a few history books.
You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
f you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.
Guy, gun murder victims are just as likely to come from your White trash trailer park in the south than a ghetto.
You made the claim that God does not exist. Of course, you can't prove He does not exist. So, why have you made an unprovable claim? Are you stupid?Prove God does not exist.You sure God is a man-made invention? Prove it.The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.
Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist. Except those granted by man. And voilà, right back where we started. Lather, rinse, repeat. Deflection fails.
The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?
Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God? If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.
Prove it isn't. That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.
.......
Exactly.
Now tell me all about this "ignorance".
Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.
I don't need to -- it's a negative. YOU would need to prove the positive.
That's never been done in human history, so rotsa ruck with that.
Your original point was, and we quote:
"The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right."
Onus is all yours.
You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.
I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.
You made the claim that God does not exist. Of course, you can't prove He does not exist. So, why have you made an unprovable claim? Are you stupid?Prove God does not exist.You sure God is a man-made invention? Prove it.Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist. Except those granted by man. And voilà, right back where we started. Lather, rinse, repeat. Deflection fails.
The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?
Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God? If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.
Prove it isn't. That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.
.......
Exactly.
Now tell me all about this "ignorance".
Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.
I don't need to -- it's a negative. YOU would need to prove the positive.
That's never been done in human history, so rotsa ruck with that.
Your original point was, and we quote:
"The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right."
Onus is all yours.
I just did. And you fucked up some quotes there, some of those attributed to me was made by somebody else. I was making fun of your juvenile comprehension of what's going on. Sort of, but I haven't ruled out cartoons.What the fuck? Who said anything about cartoons?The problem is you get your world view from cartoons and comedy shows.
You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.
I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.
Do you believe that poverty is a major factor is causing crime?
You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.
I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.
Do you believe that poverty is a major factor is causing crime?
Poverty and drugs - yes. But here's the thing - people have choices in life - they can choose to walk the straight and narrow, study hard, start at the bottom of the ladder and prove themselves worthy of promotion, etc. OR they can choose to get involved with the wrong group of peers to hang with, go further into gangs, be angry at their lot in life and go to guns, drugs and other crimes. Sadly, all it takes is a perceived wrong, just an inadvertent bumping into someone while walking down the street, to set some people off and payback ends up with somebody dead.
You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
We have 32,000 gun deaths a year.
I think we have considerably less deaths by Frying Pan.
Do you believe that poverty is a major factor is causing crime?
Poverty and drugs - yes. But here's the thing - people have choices in life - they can choose to walk the straight and narrow, study hard, start at the bottom of the ladder and prove themselves worthy of promotion, etc. OR they can choose to get involved with the wrong group of peers to hang with, go further into gangs, be angry at their lot in life and go to guns, drugs and other crimes. Sadly, all it takes is a perceived wrong, just an inadvertent bumping into someone while walking down the street, to set some people off and payback ends up with somebody dead.
No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.
So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?
And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.
Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.
True. Yet, you made a claim: "There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right"; and I made an observation: "And you dare to call yourself a Conservative" which you ignored and deflected to a personal attack. Thus we can conclude you're a hypocrite as well as an asshole.
Shut up moron, I'm a conservative and a libertarian, there is no doubting that and the rantings of a partisan hack liberal do nothing to change that. There is no compromise on a constitutional right. Period. Go play in the street retard.
The lady protests too much, methinks. Being a conservative and a libertarian means you're an idealist, sans pragmatism with a stick up your ass.
How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?The current text: "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."
The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?The current text: "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."
The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
Personally, I see no reason why not.How does one go about "compromising" with a Right that clearly says "shall not be infringed"?The current text: "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."
The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.
What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?
Really, so I can own any "arm" I please? There are no restrictions on any weapon I might have the desire to own? Who says? Did Scalia issue an executive order?
