2nd Amendment Discussion

[Porter Rockwell]

One would hope so. But we have these people on Internet discussion boards that never litigated a case in their life, pretending to be legal scholars while selling you this bullshit that the United States Supreme Court is within their rights to over-turn their own decisions and to grant powers to other branches of the government.

Again, it's plain common horse sense: If the United States Supreme Court rules on a law, they should NOT be able to come back and reverse their own decision. Because they can do that, you don't know what the law is and you couldn't abide by the law, given those parameters. Under our de jure Constitution, the legislature serves a purpose.

We have our Ninth and Tenth amendments.

They are irrelevant to your claim. You need some new material. And dannyboy, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not state constitutions.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless. I cited our supreme law of the State land. There is nothing you can Imply, that is more supreme.

You haven't cited anything you flaming faggot. I'm not your dear. You have made an assertion and not cited a damn thing even once to back your bullshit. And when people disagree with you, you go back to that causeless, clueless, liberal right wing fantasy mantra. Dude, you need some new material. Not even Chuck Schumer believes you.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless.

thanks for the practice.

Practice? You need practice to be an idiot and a troll???

 

[danielpalos]

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Those are unalienable Rights for me.

Codified in a State supreme law of the State land.

Wrong. Cite your source. You need some new material.

lol.

Our California State Constitution.

the biggest liars are the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

All these deaths and not a gun in sight
HEALTH
8,007,862Communicable disease deaths this year
4,688,763Deaths of children under 5 this year
26,179,879Abortions this year
190,663Deaths of mothers during birth this year
41,096,601HIV/AIDS infected people
1,036,975Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year
5,066,198Deaths caused by cancer this year
605,064Deaths caused by malaria this year
3,083,728Deaths caused by smoking this year
1,542,837Deaths caused by alcohol this year
832,700Road traffic accident fatalities this year
Worldometers - real time world statistics

We lose around a corps of unorganized militia every year due to gun violence.

No we don't

yes, we do.

 

[danielpalos]

We have our Ninth and Tenth amendments.

They are irrelevant to your claim. You need some new material. And dannyboy, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not state constitutions.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless. I cited our supreme law of the State land. There is nothing you can Imply, that is more supreme.

You haven't cited anything you flaming faggot. I'm not your dear. You have made an assertion and not cited a damn thing even once to back your bullshit. And when people disagree with you, you go back to that causeless, clueless, liberal right wing fantasy mantra. Dude, you need some new material. Not even Chuck Schumer believes you.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless.

thanks for the practice.

Practice? You need practice to be an idiot and a troll???

lol. why is that? you are the one with Nothing but fallacy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All these deaths and not a gun in sight
HEALTH
8,007,862Communicable disease deaths this year
4,688,763Deaths of children under 5 this year
26,179,879Abortions this year
190,663Deaths of mothers during birth this year
41,096,601HIV/AIDS infected people
1,036,975Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year
5,066,198Deaths caused by cancer this year
605,064Deaths caused by malaria this year
3,083,728Deaths caused by smoking this year
1,542,837Deaths caused by alcohol this year
832,700Road traffic accident fatalities this year
Worldometers - real time world statistics

We lose around a corps of unorganized militia every year due to gun violence.

No we don't

yes, we do.

No we don't we lose around 1600

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

As with any God given right the government cannot take it away

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Those are unalienable Rights for me.

Codified in a State supreme law of the State land.

Wrong. Cite your source. You need some new material.

lol.

Our California State Constitution.

the biggest liars are the right wing.

You must be as far right as they get.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

They are irrelevant to your claim. You need some new material. And dannyboy, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not state constitutions.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless. I cited our supreme law of the State land. There is nothing you can Imply, that is more supreme.

You haven't cited anything you flaming faggot. I'm not your dear. You have made an assertion and not cited a damn thing even once to back your bullshit. And when people disagree with you, you go back to that causeless, clueless, liberal right wing fantasy mantra. Dude, you need some new material. Not even Chuck Schumer believes you.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless.

thanks for the practice.

Practice? You need practice to be an idiot and a troll???

lol. why is that? you are the one with Nothing but fallacy.

You need some new material. You are the greatest fallacy on USM

 

[danielpalos]

All these deaths and not a gun in sight
HEALTH
8,007,862Communicable disease deaths this year
4,688,763Deaths of children under 5 this year
26,179,879Abortions this year
190,663Deaths of mothers during birth this year
41,096,601HIV/AIDS infected people
1,036,975Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year
5,066,198Deaths caused by cancer this year
605,064Deaths caused by malaria this year
3,083,728Deaths caused by smoking this year
1,542,837Deaths caused by alcohol this year
832,700Road traffic accident fatalities this year
Worldometers - real time world statistics

We lose around a corps of unorganized militia every year due to gun violence.

No we don't

yes, we do.

No we don't we lose around 1600

the source i read claimed around thirty thousand.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

As with any God given right the government cannot take it away

our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not natural rights. it says so in the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Those are unalienable Rights for me.

Codified in a State supreme law of the State land.

Wrong. Cite your source. You need some new material.

lol.

Our California State Constitution.

the biggest liars are the right wing.

You must be as far right as they get.

you need valid arguments. simple bigotry with inferior arguments, doesn't work with me.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless. I cited our supreme law of the State land. There is nothing you can Imply, that is more supreme.

You haven't cited anything you flaming faggot. I'm not your dear. You have made an assertion and not cited a damn thing even once to back your bullshit. And when people disagree with you, you go back to that causeless, clueless, liberal right wing fantasy mantra. Dude, you need some new material. Not even Chuck Schumer believes you.

dear, you are simply clueless and Causeless.

thanks for the practice.

Practice? You need practice to be an idiot and a troll???

lol. why is that? you are the one with Nothing but fallacy.

You need some new material. You are the greatest fallacy on USM

lol. coming from You?

 

[emilynghiem]

I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

.....

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

^ Here Porter Rockwell and cc danielpalos
Let's start from here which is new material for me.
This is the first I've seen DP post any beliefs in inalienable rights.
This sounds like DP equivalent of beliefs in natural rights under the US Constitution.
Except citing CA state laws instead of federal level or natural laws by God.

Can we start here and just allow both to use their own language
for laws on inalienable rights?

Also we may have differences in political beliefs.
So if religious freedom and creeds are equally individual rights
under either US or State laws, can we get around our differences
by chalking them up as individually protected as religious beliefs or creeds.

Is that the same under CA and US laws?
That people have equal religious freedom of beliefs
and can't be forced by govt to impose on these?

 

[anynameyouwish]

You have not EVER linked to a State Constitution. If you have link it now.

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

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?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

for the same irrational reasons that rightists automatically assume "liberals want all of our guns" when they say "no machine guns".....is my guess.....

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All these deaths and not a gun in sight
HEALTH
8,007,862Communicable disease deaths this year
4,688,763Deaths of children under 5 this year
26,179,879Abortions this year
190,663Deaths of mothers during birth this year
41,096,601HIV/AIDS infected people
1,036,975Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year
5,066,198Deaths caused by cancer this year
605,064Deaths caused by malaria this year
3,083,728Deaths caused by smoking this year
1,542,837Deaths caused by alcohol this year
832,700Road traffic accident fatalities this year
Worldometers - real time world statistics

We lose around a corps of unorganized militia every year due to gun violence.

No we don't

yes, we do.

No we don't we lose around 1600

the source i read claimed around thirty thousand.

Your source is combining all deaths with guns suicide gang related police shootings accidental shooting. Suicide is not gun violent accidental shootings is not gun violence police shootings are in carrying out their duties as law enforcement officers gang related is also police related have a good day

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

The second amendment is federal

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Only the incompetent right wing says so. Post one hundred, gainsays your contention.

You're an idiot, danielpalos. I personally don't have anything to do with the right wing. I'm not into partisan politics. You repost the same couple of lines over and over, then when challenged to prove it, you can't.

You claim you have. But you haven't. The only thing you've been right about is that we can't appeal to your ignorance. Your worship it too much.

You are simply incompetent. That is why I don't take the right wing seriously about anything serious.
I cited a State Constitution. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are a lying idiot, sir. You have claimed a proposition that you failed to prove and I'm the only one here that hasn't noticed it. You just keep parroting the same meaningless horseshit as if it is manna from Heaven. It isn't. It's just bullshit.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

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?

"So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form?"

as a progressive/liberal on social issues but much more moderate/conservative on crime/military issues I support

1. the right of all citizens (nonfelonious) to own weapons including "machine guns"

2. I DEMAND that anyone desiring to own such weapons MUST;
a. be properly trained by police or military
b. be properly licensed to own such weapons

I RESPECT the RIGHT of citizens to own such weapons for the following reasons;

1. I don't trust the government, either.
2. I don't trust OTHER governments and believe that at any time NK or china or russia or Grand Fenwick might attack/invade and I support the individuals right to be prepared for such a contingency.

Why do leftists get hung up on machine guns?

for the same irrational reasons that rightists automatically assume "liberals want all of our guns" when they say "no machine guns".....is my guess.....

incorrect when leftist use the words common Sense gun laws that is gun confiscation to them