2nd Amendment Discussion

[ralfy]

2A is based on the natural right to defend oneself, which meant using arms to defend one's home. But since defense also involved support from others as well as police forces, then it supported state militias which were also in place. Finally, they wanted to keep the standing army small, so 2A was also used to justify using the state militias to supplement the standing army if needed.

As armaments became more sophisticated, then more training was needed to use them plus regulations. Hence, gun control, etc.

For the same reason, professional police forces were established to replace policing functions of state militias, and a National Guard established to replace the reserve role of the same militias.

Finally, the standing army had to grow to deal with competition from various foreign armies.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

2A is based on the natural right to defend oneself, which meant using arms to defend one's home. But since defense also involved support from others as well as police forces, then it supported state militias which were also in place. Finally, they wanted to keep the standing army small, so 2A was also used to justify using the state militias to supplement the standing army if needed.

As armaments became more sophisticated, then more training was needed to use them plus regulations. Hence, gun control, etc.

For the same reason, professional police forces were established to replace policing functions of state militias, and a National Guard established to replace the reserve role of the same militias.

Finally, the standing army had to grow to deal with competition from various foreign armies.

None of that goes to the underlying facts:

1) The Second Amendment did not create nor secure the Right

2) States did not secure the Right nor did they create

3) The Right existed before the Constitution was penned

4) Government has no authority over unalienable Rights.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

Well, first, I find it funny that you mention cannons, since people very much did own cannons and gatling guns at the time that was written, and "Well Regulated" meant "kept regular" at the time that was written.

Now, that's not to say that your argument would otherwise be legitimate, since nobody should care what they thought in the first place, as the men were tyrants, and even if they weren't, this is just an appeal to authority. Why should we need the endorsement of crusty old tyrants in order to purchase property with the fruits of our labor? We shouldn't. The transaction is voluntary, the property is theirs to sell, and since it's voluntary, it would likewise be ours to buy. Merely owning property doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, therefor it can't be said that merely owning something is legitimate. This means the burden of proof is on the active party to explain why it's unethical to own property.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

What makes it legitimate for certain people to have rights that others don't? Being approved by the Government? Wearing a badge? Wearing a specific outfit? Training?

Why do people have to justify wanting to own certain property? Owning something is passive, so the burden of proof is not on them to explain why they own something, or why they need something.

Well, even if your argument here were legitimate, maybe they'd like to kill a number of people in self defense, or scare them off. Road Pirates/Police/Centralized security takes an average of 15 minutes to come shoot your dog and outline your body in chalk, so it's not as though they're sufficient protection, especially given that they've been legally shown to have no obligation to protect you.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Who are you, or really anyone else, to decide what's needed to hunt or defend yourself? What if I want a catapult because it looks cool? I have models of medieval castles, knights, catapults, siege engines, etc. What if I want to build a life-sized medieval battle diorama? Should the Government send its Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police to come shoot my dog and beat the hell out of me?

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell us what the only applications for certain tools and equipment are for? Maybe people collect guns, maybe they're for self defense, maybe they're for target practice, maybe they're toys to some people. Anything can be used for mass murder, including knives.

Why should Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police be the only people to have these sorts of weapons? They're literally the most violent demographic in America, they gun people down in the streets, through doors, etc. Why should known mass murderers be the only people legally allowed to keep certain tools? Besides that, monopolization of such tools was never practical in the first place, even less so now that they can be 3D Printed, with the schematics available online.

EDIT: Forgot my citations for Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police being incredibly violent:
The Splinter: Family Awarded just...4 dollars https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://splinternews.com/family-of-bl...
The Free Thought Project: Cops shoot dad through door https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Beats man chained to bed https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wat...
The Free Thought Project: Officers beat 9-year-old for leaning on car https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Officers Justified in Beating Loud Music https://thefreethoughtproject.com/off...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Acquitted in shooting of therapist https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Woman thrown to ground by police https://thefreethoughtproject.com/vid...
The Free Thought Project: Tasered man burns to death https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/law...
The Free Thought Project: Chief of Police removed for trying to stop police brutality https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Cop will NOT go to jail after raping 5 year old girl https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cops beat unarmed, innocent man https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Killing of sleeping man "reasonable" https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wil...
Lew Rockwell: The New "Stop Resisting" https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/04/e...
The Atlantic: How Police Training leads to Avoidable Deaths https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...
Rutherford Institute: The only truly compliant citizen is a dead one. https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://www.rutherford.org/publicatio...
The Root: If I Complied I Would Have Gotten Killed https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://www.theroot.com/if-i-would-ha...
Cleveland Police hold 11 year old at gunpoint
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/grove...
Indiana Cops taser 10-year-old https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/indi...

The Free Thought Project: Charges dropped for 119 people after cop caught planting meth https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cha...
The Free Thought Project: Cops detain entire bar https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
The Guardian: Eric Garner Chokehold Video https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/v...
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...e_pz7opBspD13pnB8MTU2NTY2ODYxOUAxNTY1NTgyMjE5

Road Pirate fired for not being too hasty to gun people down:
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...ect.com/man-strip-searched-by-cops-road-side/
Cop sodomizes man because he thought he smelled drugs:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/man... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...uota-so-city-council-fired-entire-department/
City fires Road Pirates for feeling uncomfortable extorting people:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...jgQUjL_-1dZt55YVBDMFtZpUMIRRQAfo1mv7oVCnlJAxM
Road Pirates hold kids at gunpoint:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...gs-growing-epidemic-cops-shooting-family-pets
Cops kill 25 dogs every day, on average:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-0... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...ts-over-the-next-decade-and-there-is-no-plan/
The real reason the Government-run media doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars(It's because they want to continue extorting people):
https://123duionline.com/autonomous-v... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...s-sold-due-delinquent-236-tax-payment-1449136
Road Pirates violently assaulting street musicians:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/bra... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...lp-and-is-tied-up-and-raped-by-her-detective/
Road Pirate rapes 14 year old sex crime victim instead of helping her:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chi... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=.../www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/12
Amount of Road Pirates convicted of murder(Only 20%):
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...thoughtproject.com/police-mass-shooters-guns/
Figures for Road Pirates being incredibly violent:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...ends-double-national-rate-receive-promotions/
Road Pirates more likely to beat their wives:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...project.com/nypd-run-over-bicycle-safety-suv/
Road Pirates run people over to keep them safe:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/nyp...

 

[Gracie]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

Well, first, I find it funny that you mention cannons, since people very much did own cannons and gatling guns at the time that was written, and "Well Regulated" meant "kept regular" at the time that was written.

Now, that's not to say that your argument would otherwise be legitimate, since nobody should care what they thought in the first place, as the men were tyrants, and even if they weren't, this is just an appeal to authority. Why should we need the endorsement of crusty old tyrants in order to purchase property with the fruits of our labor? We shouldn't. The transaction is voluntary, the property is theirs to sell, and since it's voluntary, it would likewise be ours to buy. Merely owning property doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, therefor it can't be said that merely owning something is legitimate. This means the burden of proof is on the active party to explain why it's unethical to own property.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

What makes it legitimate for certain people to have rights that others don't? Being approved by the Government? Wearing a badge? Wearing a specific outfit? Training?

Why do people have to justify wanting to own certain property? Owning something is passive, so the burden of proof is not on them to explain why they own something, or why they need something.

Well, even if your argument here were legitimate, maybe they'd like to kill a number of people in self defense, or scare them off. Road Pirates/Police/Centralized security takes an average of 15 minutes to come shoot your dog and outline your body in chalk, so it's not as though they're sufficient protection, especially given that they've been legally shown to have no obligation to protect you.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Who are you, or really anyone else, to decide what's needed to hunt or defend yourself? What if I want a catapult because it looks cool? I have models of medieval castles, knights, catapults, siege engines, etc. What if I want to build a life-sized medieval battle diorama? Should the Government send its Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police to come shoot my dog and beat the hell out of me?

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell us what the only applications for certain tools and equipment are for? Maybe people collect guns, maybe they're for self defense, maybe they're for target practice, maybe they're toys to some people. Anything can be used for mass murder, including knives.

Why should Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police be the only people to have these sorts of weapons? They're literally the most violent demographic in America, they gun people down in the streets, through doors, etc. Why should known mass murderers be the only people legally allowed to keep certain tools? Besides that, monopolization of such tools was never practical in the first place, even less so now that they can be 3D Printed, with the schematics available online.

EDIT: Forgot my citations for Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police being incredibly violent:
The Splinter: Family Awarded just...4 dollars
https://splinternews.com/family-of-bl...
The Free Thought Project: Cops shoot dad through door
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Beats man chained to bed
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wat...
The Free Thought Project: Officers beat 9-year-old for leaning on car https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Officers Justified in Beating Loud Music https://thefreethoughtproject.com/off...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Acquitted in shooting of therapist https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Woman thrown to ground by police https://thefreethoughtproject.com/vid...
The Free Thought Project: Tasered man burns to death
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/law...
The Free Thought Project: Chief of Police removed for trying to stop police brutality https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Cop will NOT go to jail after raping 5 year old girl https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cops beat unarmed, innocent man https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Killing of sleeping man "reasonable" https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wil...
Lew Rockwell: The New "Stop Resisting"
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/04/e...
The Atlantic: How Police Training leads to Avoidable Deaths
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...
Rutherford Institute: The only truly compliant citizen is a dead one.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicatio...
The Root: If I Complied I Would Have Gotten Killed
https://www.theroot.com/if-i-would-ha...
Cleveland Police hold 11 year old at gunpoint
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/grove...
Indiana Cops taser 10-year-old
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/indi...

The Free Thought Project: Charges dropped for 119 people after cop caught planting meth https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cha...
The Free Thought Project: Cops detain entire bar
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
The Guardian: Eric Garner Chokehold Video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/v...

Road Pirate fired for not being too hasty to gun people down:
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718...
Cop sodomizes man because he thought he smelled drugs:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/man...
City fires Road Pirates for feeling uncomfortable extorting people:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates hold kids at gunpoint:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11...
Cops kill 25 dogs every day, on average:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-0...
The real reason the Government-run media doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars(It's because they want to continue extorting people):
https://123duionline.com/autonomous-v...
Road Pirates violently assaulting street musicians:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/bra...
Road Pirate rapes 14 year old sex crime victim instead of helping her:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chi...
Amount of Road Pirates convicted of murder(Only 20%):
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police...
Figures for Road Pirates being incredibly violent:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
Road Pirates more likely to beat their wives:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates run people over to keep them safe:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/nyp...

Feel better?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

Well, first, I find it funny that you mention cannons, since people very much did own cannons and gatling guns at the time that was written, and "Well Regulated" meant "kept regular" at the time that was written.

Now, that's not to say that your argument would otherwise be legitimate, since nobody should care what they thought in the first place, as the men were tyrants, and even if they weren't, this is just an appeal to authority. Why should we need the endorsement of crusty old tyrants in order to purchase property with the fruits of our labor? We shouldn't. The transaction is voluntary, the property is theirs to sell, and since it's voluntary, it would likewise be ours to buy. Merely owning property doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, therefor it can't be said that merely owning something is legitimate. This means the burden of proof is on the active party to explain why it's unethical to own property.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

What makes it legitimate for certain people to have rights that others don't? Being approved by the Government? Wearing a badge? Wearing a specific outfit? Training?

Why do people have to justify wanting to own certain property? Owning something is passive, so the burden of proof is not on them to explain why they own something, or why they need something.

Well, even if your argument here were legitimate, maybe they'd like to kill a number of people in self defense, or scare them off. Road Pirates/Police/Centralized security takes an average of 15 minutes to come shoot your dog and outline your body in chalk, so it's not as though they're sufficient protection, especially given that they've been legally shown to have no obligation to protect you.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Who are you, or really anyone else, to decide what's needed to hunt or defend yourself? What if I want a catapult because it looks cool? I have models of medieval castles, knights, catapults, siege engines, etc. What if I want to build a life-sized medieval battle diorama? Should the Government send its Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police to come shoot my dog and beat the hell out of me?

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell us what the only applications for certain tools and equipment are for? Maybe people collect guns, maybe they're for self defense, maybe they're for target practice, maybe they're toys to some people. Anything can be used for mass murder, including knives.

Why should Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police be the only people to have these sorts of weapons? They're literally the most violent demographic in America, they gun people down in the streets, through doors, etc. Why should known mass murderers be the only people legally allowed to keep certain tools? Besides that, monopolization of such tools was never practical in the first place, even less so now that they can be 3D Printed, with the schematics available online.

EDIT: Forgot my citations for Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police being incredibly violent:
The Splinter: Family Awarded just...4 dollars
https://splinternews.com/family-of-bl...
The Free Thought Project: Cops shoot dad through door
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Beats man chained to bed
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wat...
The Free Thought Project: Officers beat 9-year-old for leaning on car https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Officers Justified in Beating Loud Music https://thefreethoughtproject.com/off...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Acquitted in shooting of therapist https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Woman thrown to ground by police https://thefreethoughtproject.com/vid...
The Free Thought Project: Tasered man burns to death
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/law...
The Free Thought Project: Chief of Police removed for trying to stop police brutality https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Cop will NOT go to jail after raping 5 year old girl https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cops beat unarmed, innocent man https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Killing of sleeping man "reasonable" https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wil...
Lew Rockwell: The New "Stop Resisting"
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/04/e...
The Atlantic: How Police Training leads to Avoidable Deaths
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...
Rutherford Institute: The only truly compliant citizen is a dead one.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicatio...
The Root: If I Complied I Would Have Gotten Killed
https://www.theroot.com/if-i-would-ha...
Cleveland Police hold 11 year old at gunpoint
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/grove...
Indiana Cops taser 10-year-old
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/indi...

The Free Thought Project: Charges dropped for 119 people after cop caught planting meth https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cha...
The Free Thought Project: Cops detain entire bar
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
The Guardian: Eric Garner Chokehold Video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/v...

Road Pirate fired for not being too hasty to gun people down:
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718...
Cop sodomizes man because he thought he smelled drugs:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/man...
City fires Road Pirates for feeling uncomfortable extorting people:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates hold kids at gunpoint:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11...
Cops kill 25 dogs every day, on average:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-0...
The real reason the Government-run media doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars(It's because they want to continue extorting people):
https://123duionline.com/autonomous-v...
Road Pirates violently assaulting street musicians:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/bra...
Road Pirate rapes 14 year old sex crime victim instead of helping her:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chi...
Amount of Road Pirates convicted of murder(Only 20%):
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police...
Figures for Road Pirates being incredibly violent:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
Road Pirates more likely to beat their wives:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates run people over to keep them safe:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/nyp...

Feel better?

Not really, I posted that because I wanted you to try to refute my argument, not ask me if I'm feeling better.

I'm not even sure if you're asking that question seriously or not.

 

[SavannahMann]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

Well, first, I find it funny that you mention cannons, since people very much did own cannons and gatling guns at the time that was written, and "Well Regulated" meant "kept regular" at the time that was written.

Now, that's not to say that your argument would otherwise be legitimate, since nobody should care what they thought in the first place, as the men were tyrants, and even if they weren't, this is just an appeal to authority. Why should we need the endorsement of crusty old tyrants in order to purchase property with the fruits of our labor? We shouldn't. The transaction is voluntary, the property is theirs to sell, and since it's voluntary, it would likewise be ours to buy. Merely owning property doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, therefor it can't be said that merely owning something is legitimate. This means the burden of proof is on the active party to explain why it's unethical to own property.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

What makes it legitimate for certain people to have rights that others don't? Being approved by the Government? Wearing a badge? Wearing a specific outfit? Training?

Why do people have to justify wanting to own certain property? Owning something is passive, so the burden of proof is not on them to explain why they own something, or why they need something.

Well, even if your argument here were legitimate, maybe they'd like to kill a number of people in self defense, or scare them off. Road Pirates/Police/Centralized security takes an average of 15 minutes to come shoot your dog and outline your body in chalk, so it's not as though they're sufficient protection, especially given that they've been legally shown to have no obligation to protect you.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Who are you, or really anyone else, to decide what's needed to hunt or defend yourself? What if I want a catapult because it looks cool? I have models of medieval castles, knights, catapults, siege engines, etc. What if I want to build a life-sized medieval battle diorama? Should the Government send its Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police to come shoot my dog and beat the hell out of me?

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell us what the only applications for certain tools and equipment are for? Maybe people collect guns, maybe they're for self defense, maybe they're for target practice, maybe they're toys to some people. Anything can be used for mass murder, including knives.

Why should Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police be the only people to have these sorts of weapons? They're literally the most violent demographic in America, they gun people down in the streets, through doors, etc. Why should known mass murderers be the only people legally allowed to keep certain tools? Besides that, monopolization of such tools was never practical in the first place, even less so now that they can be 3D Printed, with the schematics available online.

EDIT: Forgot my citations for Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police being incredibly violent:
The Splinter: Family Awarded just...4 dollars
https://splinternews.com/family-of-bl...
The Free Thought Project: Cops shoot dad through door
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Beats man chained to bed
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wat...
The Free Thought Project: Officers beat 9-year-old for leaning on car https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Officers Justified in Beating Loud Music https://thefreethoughtproject.com/off...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Acquitted in shooting of therapist https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Woman thrown to ground by police https://thefreethoughtproject.com/vid...
The Free Thought Project: Tasered man burns to death
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/law...
The Free Thought Project: Chief of Police removed for trying to stop police brutality https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Cop will NOT go to jail after raping 5 year old girl https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cops beat unarmed, innocent man https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Killing of sleeping man "reasonable" https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wil...
Lew Rockwell: The New "Stop Resisting"
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/04/e...
The Atlantic: How Police Training leads to Avoidable Deaths
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...
Rutherford Institute: The only truly compliant citizen is a dead one.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicatio...
The Root: If I Complied I Would Have Gotten Killed
https://www.theroot.com/if-i-would-ha...
Cleveland Police hold 11 year old at gunpoint
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/grove...
Indiana Cops taser 10-year-old
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/indi...

The Free Thought Project: Charges dropped for 119 people after cop caught planting meth https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cha...
The Free Thought Project: Cops detain entire bar
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
The Guardian: Eric Garner Chokehold Video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/v...

Road Pirate fired for not being too hasty to gun people down:
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718...
Cop sodomizes man because he thought he smelled drugs:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/man...
City fires Road Pirates for feeling uncomfortable extorting people:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates hold kids at gunpoint:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11...
Cops kill 25 dogs every day, on average:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-0...
The real reason the Government-run media doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars(It's because they want to continue extorting people):
https://123duionline.com/autonomous-v...
Road Pirates violently assaulting street musicians:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/bra...
Road Pirate rapes 14 year old sex crime victim instead of helping her:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chi...
Amount of Road Pirates convicted of murder(Only 20%):
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police...
Figures for Road Pirates being incredibly violent:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
Road Pirates more likely to beat their wives:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates run people over to keep them safe:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/nyp...

Feel better?

Not really, I posted that because I wanted you to try to refute my argument, not ask me if I'm feeling better.

I'm not even sure if you're asking that question seriously or not.

She is not. Like most anti gunners, she will not discuss the subject on any level above emotions. I don’t like it, so you can’t do it.

 

[Picaro]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

My point is that despite all the sophistry and wringing of blood from gnats, in real life firearms have always been regulated in one form or another in this country; whether one is happy or not about it isn't a Constitutional issue; the Federal and state Courts rule whatever suits them personally as a majority, and they don''t care about precedent; they can make that up as they go along, and that's what they did. It hasn't been a Constitutional problem since 1792, just a matter of whims every time the SC or a lower Court changes its makeup of ideologies. Precedent was either abandoned or invented from the beginning.

All of this has been refuted with actual court rulings.

So what? they will also be reversed or rewritten when the makeups of the SC changes. It takes more than just your imagination and fantasies to refute history.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc. Their goal was for every citizen to be able to protect themselves..which is what most of us that own weapon(s) planned when purchasing them. That I have no problem with. But..I see no reason why deeper delving into psyche should also be utilitzed to keep the nutbars from owning them. The guy in El Paso..his dad seems to be a nutbar too. So who bought him the weapons? Him or the guy himself? Also, on the other end of the dilemma....criminals don't really care about the standards and hoops of red tape to get a gun. Black market is alive and well.

I don't see any reason that semi-automatic carbines couldn't be categorized as a "destructive weapon," and require a tax stamp, like machine guns and grenade launchers are. It's common sense. But how much compliance will there be? There is a guarantee that this sort of violence will continue for some time, unless those illegally providing the weapons to the evildoers begin facing terrorism charges. Aiding and abetting in any manner should be a capital crime.

you dumb mother fuckers need to learn the 2nd amendment was meant for weapons of war and things that destroy,,,

In the famous Miller ruling over a short barreled shotgun, Miller only lost because a shotgun was not a weapons associated with a militia. There were never any laws aimed at military type weapons until the Constitution was 145 years old.

There are over 400 million firearms in the United States with less than 1 percent involved in any kind of criminal activity. Can you name anything out there other than a video game (maybe) that has that good of a safety record?

People need to focus more on reducing crime without worrying about gun control. We can focus on the problem without any gun control measures being passed. We won't. The numbers are unimportant. Some sick people just want to ban guns. They have no use for Liberty or Freedom.

all guns are military style weapons, weapons of war, or any other name you want to give them, they were designed and created for one purpose and that is to kill...

and any laws about guns are a violation of the constitution,,,

 

[Blues Man]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

You do understand that the right to own and carry, keep and bear, any weapon is not equivalent with the right to use that weapon to inflict harm don't you?

I have the right to carry a concealed firearm. What I absolutely do not have is the right to fire that weapon except in the defense of my person or where I have the express permission of a property owner and am conforming to local statutes regarding the discharge of a firearm in city limits.

If a person ever does fire a gun in self defense or indeed if any weapon is used in self defense there is no presumption if innocence as you have admitted that you used a weapon. Defensive use of any weapon must be deemed justifiable by law enforcement, the courts and a jury.

You never have to justify the exercise of a right the fact that you have to justify the defensive use of any weapon indicates that while owning and carrying a weapon is a right the use of that weapon is not.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

My point is that despite all the sophistry and wringing of blood from gnats, in real life firearms have always been regulated in one form or another in this country; whether one is happy or not about it isn't a Constitutional issue; the Federal and state Courts rule whatever suits them personally as a majority, and they don''t care about precedent; they can make that up as they go along, and that's what they did. It hasn't been a Constitutional problem since 1792, just a matter of whims every time the SC or a lower Court changes its makeup of ideologies. Precedent was either abandoned or invented from the beginning.

All of this has been refuted with actual court rulings.

So what? they will also be reversed or rewritten when the makeups of the SC changes. It takes more than just your imagination and fantasies to refute history.

The only part insofar as legality is concerned is that the earliest courts ruled that the Right was above the reach of the law. Subsequent courts violated the Constitution by trying to legislate from the bench.

At some point the people bow down to a yoke of tyranny OR they reject tyranny... which was the whole point to passage of the Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

My point is that despite all the sophistry and wringing of blood from gnats, in real life firearms have always been regulated in one form or another in this country; whether one is happy or not about it isn't a Constitutional issue; the Federal and state Courts rule whatever suits them personally as a majority, and they don''t care about precedent; they can make that up as they go along, and that's what they did. It hasn't been a Constitutional problem since 1792, just a matter of whims every time the SC or a lower Court changes its makeup of ideologies. Precedent was either abandoned or invented from the beginning.

All of this has been refuted with actual court rulings.

So what? they will also be reversed or rewritten when the makeups of the SC changes. It takes more than just your imagination and fantasies to refute history.

The only part insofar as legality is concerned is that the earliest courts ruled that the Right was above the reach of the law. Subsequent courts violated the Constitution by trying to legislate from the bench.

At some point the people bow down to a yoke of tyranny OR they reject tyranny... which was the whole point to passage of the Second Amendment.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not the whole and entire concept of natural rights, which is already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Gracie]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

Well, first, I find it funny that you mention cannons, since people very much did own cannons and gatling guns at the time that was written, and "Well Regulated" meant "kept regular" at the time that was written.

Now, that's not to say that your argument would otherwise be legitimate, since nobody should care what they thought in the first place, as the men were tyrants, and even if they weren't, this is just an appeal to authority. Why should we need the endorsement of crusty old tyrants in order to purchase property with the fruits of our labor? We shouldn't. The transaction is voluntary, the property is theirs to sell, and since it's voluntary, it would likewise be ours to buy. Merely owning property doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, therefor it can't be said that merely owning something is legitimate. This means the burden of proof is on the active party to explain why it's unethical to own property.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

What makes it legitimate for certain people to have rights that others don't? Being approved by the Government? Wearing a badge? Wearing a specific outfit? Training?

Why do people have to justify wanting to own certain property? Owning something is passive, so the burden of proof is not on them to explain why they own something, or why they need something.

Well, even if your argument here were legitimate, maybe they'd like to kill a number of people in self defense, or scare them off. Road Pirates/Police/Centralized security takes an average of 15 minutes to come shoot your dog and outline your body in chalk, so it's not as though they're sufficient protection, especially given that they've been legally shown to have no obligation to protect you.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Who are you, or really anyone else, to decide what's needed to hunt or defend yourself? What if I want a catapult because it looks cool? I have models of medieval castles, knights, catapults, siege engines, etc. What if I want to build a life-sized medieval battle diorama? Should the Government send its Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police to come shoot my dog and beat the hell out of me?

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell us what the only applications for certain tools and equipment are for? Maybe people collect guns, maybe they're for self defense, maybe they're for target practice, maybe they're toys to some people. Anything can be used for mass murder, including knives.

Why should Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police be the only people to have these sorts of weapons? They're literally the most violent demographic in America, they gun people down in the streets, through doors, etc. Why should known mass murderers be the only people legally allowed to keep certain tools? Besides that, monopolization of such tools was never practical in the first place, even less so now that they can be 3D Printed, with the schematics available online.

EDIT: Forgot my citations for Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police being incredibly violent:
The Splinter: Family Awarded just...4 dollars
https://splinternews.com/family-of-bl...
The Free Thought Project: Cops shoot dad through door
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Beats man chained to bed
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wat...
The Free Thought Project: Officers beat 9-year-old for leaning on car https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Officers Justified in Beating Loud Music https://thefreethoughtproject.com/off...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Acquitted in shooting of therapist https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Woman thrown to ground by police https://thefreethoughtproject.com/vid...
The Free Thought Project: Tasered man burns to death
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/law...
The Free Thought Project: Chief of Police removed for trying to stop police brutality https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Cop will NOT go to jail after raping 5 year old girl https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cops beat unarmed, innocent man https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Killing of sleeping man "reasonable" https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wil...
Lew Rockwell: The New "Stop Resisting"
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/04/e...
The Atlantic: How Police Training leads to Avoidable Deaths
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...
Rutherford Institute: The only truly compliant citizen is a dead one.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicatio...
The Root: If I Complied I Would Have Gotten Killed
https://www.theroot.com/if-i-would-ha...
Cleveland Police hold 11 year old at gunpoint
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/grove...
Indiana Cops taser 10-year-old
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/indi...

The Free Thought Project: Charges dropped for 119 people after cop caught planting meth https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cha...
The Free Thought Project: Cops detain entire bar
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
The Guardian: Eric Garner Chokehold Video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/v...

Road Pirate fired for not being too hasty to gun people down:
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718...
Cop sodomizes man because he thought he smelled drugs:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/man...
City fires Road Pirates for feeling uncomfortable extorting people:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates hold kids at gunpoint:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11...
Cops kill 25 dogs every day, on average:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-0...
The real reason the Government-run media doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars(It's because they want to continue extorting people):
https://123duionline.com/autonomous-v...
Road Pirates violently assaulting street musicians:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/bra...
Road Pirate rapes 14 year old sex crime victim instead of helping her:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chi...
Amount of Road Pirates convicted of murder(Only 20%):
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police...
Figures for Road Pirates being incredibly violent:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
Road Pirates more likely to beat their wives:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates run people over to keep them safe:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/nyp...

Feel better?

Not really, I posted that because I wanted you to try to refute my argument, not ask me if I'm feeling better.

I'm not even sure if you're asking that question seriously or not.

She is not. Like most anti gunners, she will not discuss the subject on any level above emotions. I don’t like it, so you can’t do it.

So...you "know" me? Since when? And where did I say I was anti gun? Again...since when? I own guns. I am NOT giving them up. I asked a question or two or three. Mainly, just curious as to what the founding fathers had in mind when they had no clue what future weaponry would consist of;. Unless they were like you and know all in their infinite wisdom. *Sarcasm*

Same response to Pumpkin.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

My point is that despite all the sophistry and wringing of blood from gnats, in real life firearms have always been regulated in one form or another in this country; whether one is happy or not about it isn't a Constitutional issue; the Federal and state Courts rule whatever suits them personally as a majority, and they don''t care about precedent; they can make that up as they go along, and that's what they did. It hasn't been a Constitutional problem since 1792, just a matter of whims every time the SC or a lower Court changes its makeup of ideologies. Precedent was either abandoned or invented from the beginning.

All of this has been refuted with actual court rulings.

So what? they will also be reversed or rewritten when the makeups of the SC changes. It takes more than just your imagination and fantasies to refute history.

The only part insofar as legality is concerned is that the earliest courts ruled that the Right was above the reach of the law. Subsequent courts violated the Constitution by trying to legislate from the bench.

At some point the people bow down to a yoke of tyranny OR they reject tyranny... which was the whole point to passage of the Second Amendment.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not the whole and entire concept of natural rights, which is already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Refuted in my earlier posts. Nice try, however.

 

[danielpalos]

My point is that despite all the sophistry and wringing of blood from gnats, in real life firearms have always been regulated in one form or another in this country; whether one is happy or not about it isn't a Constitutional issue; the Federal and state Courts rule whatever suits them personally as a majority, and they don''t care about precedent; they can make that up as they go along, and that's what they did. It hasn't been a Constitutional problem since 1792, just a matter of whims every time the SC or a lower Court changes its makeup of ideologies. Precedent was either abandoned or invented from the beginning.

All of this has been refuted with actual court rulings.

So what? they will also be reversed or rewritten when the makeups of the SC changes. It takes more than just your imagination and fantasies to refute history.

The only part insofar as legality is concerned is that the earliest courts ruled that the Right was above the reach of the law. Subsequent courts violated the Constitution by trying to legislate from the bench.

At some point the people bow down to a yoke of tyranny OR they reject tyranny... which was the whole point to passage of the Second Amendment.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not the whole and entire concept of natural rights, which is already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Refuted in my earlier posts. Nice try, however.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

All of this has been refuted with actual court rulings.

So what? they will also be reversed or rewritten when the makeups of the SC changes. It takes more than just your imagination and fantasies to refute history.

The only part insofar as legality is concerned is that the earliest courts ruled that the Right was above the reach of the law. Subsequent courts violated the Constitution by trying to legislate from the bench.

At some point the people bow down to a yoke of tyranny OR they reject tyranny... which was the whole point to passage of the Second Amendment.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not the whole and entire concept of natural rights, which is already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Refuted in my earlier posts. Nice try, however.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

I wasn't appealing to your ignorance. I was just stating a fact from the courts own rulings.

 

[danielpalos]

So what? they will also be reversed or rewritten when the makeups of the SC changes. It takes more than just your imagination and fantasies to refute history.

The only part insofar as legality is concerned is that the earliest courts ruled that the Right was above the reach of the law. Subsequent courts violated the Constitution by trying to legislate from the bench.

At some point the people bow down to a yoke of tyranny OR they reject tyranny... which was the whole point to passage of the Second Amendment.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not the whole and entire concept of natural rights, which is already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Refuted in my earlier posts. Nice try, however.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

I wasn't appealing to your ignorance. I was just stating a fact from the courts own rulings.

a simple error. we have our Ninth Amendment.

 

[justinacolmena]

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to _____?

*Yawn* it's about time for civilian women to get out of bed with their authoritarian bodyguards.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

Well, first, I find it funny that you mention cannons, since people very much did own cannons and gatling guns at the time that was written, and "Well Regulated" meant "kept regular" at the time that was written.

Now, that's not to say that your argument would otherwise be legitimate, since nobody should care what they thought in the first place, as the men were tyrants, and even if they weren't, this is just an appeal to authority. Why should we need the endorsement of crusty old tyrants in order to purchase property with the fruits of our labor? We shouldn't. The transaction is voluntary, the property is theirs to sell, and since it's voluntary, it would likewise be ours to buy. Merely owning property doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, therefor it can't be said that merely owning something is legitimate. This means the burden of proof is on the active party to explain why it's unethical to own property.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

What makes it legitimate for certain people to have rights that others don't? Being approved by the Government? Wearing a badge? Wearing a specific outfit? Training?

Why do people have to justify wanting to own certain property? Owning something is passive, so the burden of proof is not on them to explain why they own something, or why they need something.

Well, even if your argument here were legitimate, maybe they'd like to kill a number of people in self defense, or scare them off. Road Pirates/Police/Centralized security takes an average of 15 minutes to come shoot your dog and outline your body in chalk, so it's not as though they're sufficient protection, especially given that they've been legally shown to have no obligation to protect you.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

Who are you, or really anyone else, to decide what's needed to hunt or defend yourself? What if I want a catapult because it looks cool? I have models of medieval castles, knights, catapults, siege engines, etc. What if I want to build a life-sized medieval battle diorama? Should the Government send its Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police to come shoot my dog and beat the hell out of me?

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell us what the only applications for certain tools and equipment are for? Maybe people collect guns, maybe they're for self defense, maybe they're for target practice, maybe they're toys to some people. Anything can be used for mass murder, including knives.

Why should Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police be the only people to have these sorts of weapons? They're literally the most violent demographic in America, they gun people down in the streets, through doors, etc. Why should known mass murderers be the only people legally allowed to keep certain tools? Besides that, monopolization of such tools was never practical in the first place, even less so now that they can be 3D Printed, with the schematics available online.

EDIT: Forgot my citations for Road Pirates/Centralized Security/Police being incredibly violent:
The Splinter: Family Awarded just...4 dollars
https://splinternews.com/family-of-bl...
The Free Thought Project: Cops shoot dad through door
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Beats man chained to bed
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wat...
The Free Thought Project: Officers beat 9-year-old for leaning on car https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Officers Justified in Beating Loud Music https://thefreethoughtproject.com/off...
The Free Thought Project: Cop Acquitted in shooting of therapist https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Woman thrown to ground by police https://thefreethoughtproject.com/vid...
The Free Thought Project: Tasered man burns to death
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/law...
The Free Thought Project: Chief of Police removed for trying to stop police brutality https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Cop will NOT go to jail after raping 5 year old girl https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
The Free Thought Project: Cops beat unarmed, innocent man https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mes...
The Free Thought Project: Killing of sleeping man "reasonable" https://thefreethoughtproject.com/wil...
Lew Rockwell: The New "Stop Resisting"
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/04/e...
The Atlantic: How Police Training leads to Avoidable Deaths
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...
Rutherford Institute: The only truly compliant citizen is a dead one.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicatio...
The Root: If I Complied I Would Have Gotten Killed
https://www.theroot.com/if-i-would-ha...
Cleveland Police hold 11 year old at gunpoint
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/grove...
Indiana Cops taser 10-year-old
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/indi...

The Free Thought Project: Charges dropped for 119 people after cop caught planting meth https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cha...
The Free Thought Project: Cops detain entire bar
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
The Guardian: Eric Garner Chokehold Video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/v...

Road Pirate fired for not being too hasty to gun people down:
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718...
Cop sodomizes man because he thought he smelled drugs:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/man...
City fires Road Pirates for feeling uncomfortable extorting people:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates hold kids at gunpoint:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11...
Cops kill 25 dogs every day, on average:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-0...
The real reason the Government-run media doesn't like the idea of self-driving cars(It's because they want to continue extorting people):
https://123duionline.com/autonomous-v...
Road Pirates violently assaulting street musicians:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/bra...
Road Pirate rapes 14 year old sex crime victim instead of helping her:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chi...
Amount of Road Pirates convicted of murder(Only 20%):
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police...
Figures for Road Pirates being incredibly violent:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...
Road Pirates more likely to beat their wives:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...
Road Pirates run people over to keep them safe:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/nyp...

Feel better?

Not really, I posted that because I wanted you to try to refute my argument, not ask me if I'm feeling better.

I'm not even sure if you're asking that question seriously or not.

She is not. Like most anti gunners, she will not discuss the subject on any level above emotions. I don’t like it, so you can’t do it.

So...you "know" me? Since when? And where did I say I was anti gun? Again...since when? I own guns. I am NOT giving them up. I asked a question or two or three. Mainly, just curious as to what the founding fathers had in mind when they had no clue what future weaponry would consist of;. Unless they were like you and know all in their infinite wisdom. *Sarcasm*

Same response to Pumpkin.

If you think my argument isn't legitimate, perhaps you'd be willing to refute any part of it, rather than taking cheap shots at me in responses to someone else. I told you the ethical argument, and pragmatic argument, both indicating that people's rights should not be infringed. I also refuted your claim that the crusty old tyrants hadn't intended for people to own cannons.

I'm perfectly willing to have an honest discussion, if you'd like to do something other than dodge my argument.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

You're simply incorrect. Muzzle loading cannons of the sort that were used in the days of the founders, were not prohibited in the early days of the US. In fact, to this day, they are still federally unregulated.

Cannons have never been widely used for hunting or sport shooting. Muzzle loading cannons were only ever designed for siege warfare, naval warfare, and anti-infantry applications. Essentially, the ONLY purpose of these weapons was to take out as many as possible, almost EXCLUSIVELY humans, or to directly aid in taking out as many as possible by cracking open forts and bunkers or sinking ships.

I'm afraid you're completely off-base in your interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and therefore your prescription on how that purpose should be applied to modern rifles.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The only part insofar as legality is concerned is that the earliest courts ruled that the Right was above the reach of the law. Subsequent courts violated the Constitution by trying to legislate from the bench.

At some point the people bow down to a yoke of tyranny OR they reject tyranny... which was the whole point to passage of the Second Amendment.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not the whole and entire concept of natural rights, which is already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Refuted in my earlier posts. Nice try, however.

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause.

I wasn't appealing to your ignorance. I was just stating a fact from the courts own rulings.

a simple error. we have our Ninth Amendment.

If you will take the time to read post # 28 you won't be finding this to be "funny." All I can tell you is that if you disagree, then you've never litigated this sh!+ in court. And if you haven't litigated it in court, your nonsensical posts are little more than a detraction to people knowing what the facts are.

The Ninth Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't apply.