CDZ Does the gun control side have any argument that supports banning guns?

[2aguy]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

 

[Toronado3800]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

 

[2aguy]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

 

[toobfreak]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

Gun-grabbers do not need arguments or facts on their side, all they need is lies supplied through a complicit media fed to a properly dumbed-down and conditioned public.

 

[Toronado3800]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

 

[2aguy]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Again...you really need to read D.C. v Heller, where they explain the wording of the 2nd Amendment and how that same phrasing was used all the time in that historical period....

The first part is the Dependent clause, not the independent clause.....it has no value ...

 

[Pop23]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

It's because a "Militia" is not possible without weapons and well regulated meant, in those times, weapons that were well maintained and could be easily called upon. I find it funny though that "Militia" is often thought of as somehow just required to stage a Revolution against an oppressive government, which it could be. But it is also intended to be a supplement to a standing Army, or a last defense if that army became depleted.

 

[Humorme]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Again...you really need to read D.C. v Heller, where they explain the wording of the 2nd Amendment and how that same phrasing was used all the time in that historical period....

The first part is the Dependent clause, not the independent clause.....it has no value ...

In more recent years, the United States Supreme Court has taken a giant dump on the Second Amendment as they legislate from the bench. But, I'd like to remind you what the Court ruled in the earliest case on this point:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

1) The Right exists

2) The Right applies to individuals bearing arms for a lawful purpose (i.e. self defense and aid to the country in the individual's capacity as a part of the unorganized militia)

3) The Right does not depend on the Constitution of its existence

 

[Toronado3800]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

Again...you really need to read D.C. v Heller, where they explain the wording of the 2nd Amendment and how that same phrasing was used all the time in that historical period....

The first part is the Dependent clause, not the independent clause.....it has no value ...

Exactly!

We are down to debating which is the the dependent clause and what the 2nd comma is doing in there.

To me it seems like 3 sentence fragments and some poor judges opinion on the issue. By leaning on them btw you open yourself up to more constitutional challenges which may vary with court disposition.

Obviously in 1805 white men were running about with guns legally though so this debate is purely one of semantics. Thankfully better natured than some I've had with ex-girlfriends

 

[RagnarCarlsen]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

Sophistry alert: Gun control is not synonymous with banning guns.

Strawman.

 

[JoeB131]

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

yOu mean people get tired of talking to you, and go home?

Okay, whatever, dude.

You've been presented with lots of stats showing gun control works just fine in every country that has done it. You just pretend that it doesn't mean what it obviously means.

 

[Humorme]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

Sophistry alert: Gun control is not synonymous with banning guns.

Strawman.

Your argument is the strawman argument. Congress has NO constitutional authority to "control" guns. They are limited to helping regulate a militia. And how was this regulation to be achieved? Ask a founder:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

 

[RagnarCarlsen]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

Sophistry alert: Gun control is not synonymous with banning guns.

Strawman.

Your argument is the strawman argument. Congress has NO constitutional authority to "control" guns. They are limited to helping regulate a militia. And how was this regulation to be achieved? Ask a founder:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

You clearly don't know what a strawman argument is.

If you are refuting an argument no one has made, you're making a straw man argument. Almost no one, and no one at all in the political mainstream is suggesting a blanket ban on guns, or even handguns for that matter.

And that's all before you get to the point that SCOTUS has decided on this, and Congress DOES have the authority to regulate guns, but not to ban them.

So not only are you making a red herring argument, you're also doing it based on provably false claims.

 

[toobfreak]

no one at all in the political mainstream is suggesting a blanket ban on guns, or even handguns for that matter.

Try again, Raghead.

 

[RagnarCarlsen]

no one at all in the political mainstream is suggesting a blanket ban on guns, or even handguns for that matter.

Try again, Raghead.

No.

 

[jon_berzerk]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

I really own a gun and all. Just all the posts kinda make me want to debate the issue.

They have the Constitution as written if not intended on their side.

The biggest stretch of that poorly written 2nd is that citizens who are part of the militia can own guns they use to help arm the militia.

See...that is my point...that isn't even remotely true or accurate. In D.C. v Heller, they go all the way back to the Stewars in England, through the colonial period up to today and all the historical and legal Precedent that state that owning a gun is a Right, that exists without the Constitution and outside of any militia.....

Again, the Constitution is not on their side of the debate....

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

We're likely to disagree on the literary prowess of whoever wrote the 2nd forever (James Madison?). Obviously the founding fathers intended for white fellows to own guns. We can look and see how the 2nd was implemented.

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that for some reason it was put in the same sentence about the old National Guard for whatever reason.

This is it, no? "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."

Did someone sneak in there a thing about the militia because they were not so pro gun common citizen?

Did they do it because they figured in guns were needed by state militias to keep the feds at bay?

Its a "because of this, that" statement in common terms. The "because of this part" should never have been attached to the "that" part IMO.

It's because a "Militia" is not possible without weapons and well regulated meant, in those times, weapons that were well maintained and could be easily called upon. I find it funny though that "Militia" is often thought of as somehow just required to stage a Revolution against an oppressive government, which it could be. But it is also intended to be a supplement to a standing Army, or a last defense if that army became depleted.

if you go back to miller

the question that was asked

was miller's shotgun useful to the "military" not the militia

the question has yet to be answered

if the question is ever answered honestly

that will pretty much sink the 1934 firearms control act

and everything that has followed

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

This is what keep lawyers in business - explaining why something that is stated plainly doesn't really say what it does.

 

[Pop23]

The 2nd isn't poorly written..... the anti gunners pretend to read it the way they do because they don't like that it defines our Right to keep and bear arms....read D.C. v Heller where they go through the 2nd element by element....

This is what keep lawyers in business - explaining why something that is stated plainly doesn't really say what it does.

Written as plain as day. The right to the arms is granted to the people, not the Militia.

 

[2aguy]

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

yOu mean people get tired of talking to you, and go home?

Okay, whatever, dude.

You've been presented with lots of stats showing gun control works just fine in every country that has done it. You just pretend that it doesn't mean what it obviously means.

No.....you have been shown that the very countries you point to have growing gun crime rates while here, as more Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder and our gun crime rates are going down......

You have to pretend that what you are being shown doesn't exist....

 

[2aguy]

They don't have the Constitution on their side.

They don't have Supreme Court rulings on their side.

They don't have crime statistics on their side.

They don't have suicide statistics on their side.

So, do they have anything that supports their call for more gun control?

After years of debating them, not one of their arguments survives a second of fact checking......

Sophistry alert: Gun control is not synonymous with banning guns.

Strawman.

In the hands of anti gun extremists it is...... there have proposed no new laws that only affect criminals and mass shooters..... every new law is just one more step to ratchet down on the Right for law abiding gun owners....