CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

A former coworker and friend of mine likes to make knives and has a knife collection. Should he have his collection confiscated because some other A-hole decided to stab someone? Should I have my truck taken away if some idiot drives drunk and kills someone?

Assault rifles were banned prior to Cruz going on his assault rifle shooting spree. They should be banned again because it was a mistake to allow the 1994 ban to end. Here's why.

. Klarevas has compiled data on gun massacres involving six or more fatalities for the 50 years before 2016. His numbers show that gun massacres fell significantly during the time the assault weapons ban was in place, and skyrocketed after the ban lapsed in 2004. A separate mass shooting database compiled by Mother Jones magazine shows a similar trend.

So why did mass shootings spike in 1998 and 1999 during the assault weapon ban? There were two mass shootings in 1997 with eight killed and five wounded. But then it spiked in 1998 and 1999 with three shootings with 13 killed and 36 wounded in '98, and five shootings with 44 killed and 54 wounded in '99. If my math is correct, that's a 62% and a 450% increase in mass shooting deaths in '98 and '99, respectively, from '97. All of this during an assault weapon ban.

I can't say what effect the ban had on mass shootings but I can say that there are obviously other factors at work here, considering the numbers. If it was as simple as banning assault rifles then the numbers should have trended down and stayed there.

Gun, not knife massacres, fell significantly during the ten year assault rifle ban.

Your friend's knife collection will remain safely in his hands.

That wasn't the point. The point is that if you're going to take semi-auto rifles from everyone because a few murdered people with theirs, then by the same principle, we should ban knives because a few chose to commit murder with them.

So. “the real objective of the assault weapons ban was always to reduce both the frequency and lethality of mass shootings.” Which the original ban did. You see your friend's knives are not ever going to be involved in a mass shooting or any government confiscations. Another weak paranoid and foiled argument on your part.

The problem with this is that, as I said, they punished law abiding gun owners and infringed on their 2nd Amendment rights to do so.

As I've pointed out a few times to other posters, there is a massacre happening on our highways right now. In 2015 alone there were 3477 deaths attributed to distracted driving. I can't find solid numbers on how many were texting or talking on the cell phone but it looks to me after perusing a few websites that it would be better than half of them. That's roughly 1700 teenage deaths every year from texting and driving. And texting while driving is currently the leading cause of death of teenagers.

The National Safety Council estimates that cell phone use is the cause of 1.6 million accidents a year and the death of roughly 11 teenagers every day. That's 11 teenagers every day. These accidents and deaths are happening despite the fact that texting while driving is against the law. Eleven kids are dying every day and all they can think to do pass a law against it and raising awareness campaigns. Not once has it ever been suggested that cell phones be banned or that cars be banned or anything like that.

Eleven kids a day die on our highways but by God, we've got to do something about that scary looking gun!
 
What do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Don't you think it is folly to trust a government that don't trust you?

The game is always the same. There ought to be "reasonable" gun restrictions, right? The government outlawed the public's ability to convert semi-auto to full auto. Do you know how many people were killed by a legally held full auto? Exactly 0, zilch, nobody, not a soul.

The government outlawed the importation of WWII firearms that are normally sold to the public by the government through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. What's so reasonable about that?

We were told how "evil" the AK was, so George Bush outlawed the imports of foreign semi-automatics. How "reasonable" did that turn out for you?

You tried the Assault Weapon Ban and it didn't work.

There are over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city rules, statutes, ordinances, edicts, regulations, case precedents, etc. governing firearms. When is enough gun control "reasonable?"

The only thing that has been done is that every time something happens, they blame the damn guns. How come you aren't mad that the laws would have prevented the last few mass shootings IF the government had done their job? And did you advocate that any of those who ignored the reports and the warning signs should be held accountable? Don't you think the FBI should find out who dropped the ball and put them in prison? Aren't you embarrassed that a LEO showed up on the Lakeland scene, was too cowardly to stop the shooter, and now gets to retire and draw a pension?

How can you ethically pose such a question to me when America has NO kind of policy to help the mentally ill? Most mentally ill people are not treated; they are put in prisons. We have TEN TIMES more mentally ill people in prison than there are being treated. It's not the freaking guns fault that we don't deal with people we know, for a fact, pose a threat to the public.

US prisons hold 10 times more mentally ill people than state hospitals – report

They've gone as far as they can go with gun control. This, for me, IS the line in the sand. The anti-gun lobby has ignored me and as recent as a week before that shooting, I was active in trying to get people to lobby Congress against handing out SSRIs like candy (most mass shooters have used SSRIs.) Where the Hell were you? And, no, I don't blame just the SSRIs, but they are instrumental in tracking down those who are most likely to commit an act of violence.

You're going to have to come with a new strategy. I'm not playing games by answering rhetorical questions asked by people who were absent while I was trying to save lives.

The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias. It was the product of a discussion about the rights of the states versus the rights of the federal government and the states rights contingent wanted to make sure that the states had the capability to resist tyranny if necessary. Since that time, it's morphed into something entirely different but that's how our system works.

I don't trust the federal government at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

This is not a "rhetorical" question at all. It's very simple. Do you believe that governmental entities at all levels should not be allowed to ban the private ownership of any weapon?

If you start out with a false premise, like that have you stopped beating your wife variety of questions, you will get no traction here. I dismantled that argument you made in a rather long post on this thread. Shall I repeat it? Post # 306 completely destroys the misinformation you're posting.

Let's start by repeating the answer to your FIRST error:



Once you've done that go back to my long reply that dismantles your argument.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Rights of the people. Once you understand that (and not before) can your question be dealt with honestly.


I understand the Bill of Rights much better than you do. That is obvious. Your refusal to answer a very simple question and to try and divert the discussion elsewhere indicates that you have no intention of participating in a rational discussion.

You asked what the purpose of the second amendment WAS. The intent of the writers in the 18th century was clear. The Supreme Court has chosen to reinterpret it in the 21st century so fine. That's the interpretation we will go with today. If you really want to understand the original intent of the second amendment, you should read the text of discussions about it during the ratification process. It is very obvious what they were trying to do and the meaning of "bear arms" was very clear. However, that is not the subject I was trying to get you to discuss in a rational manner. I don't harbor any hope now that you will ever do so.


You have a rather high opinion of yourself, but I always like prefer that the founders speak for themselves:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Now, I've not only quoted the founders on the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms and its exact meaning, but I've quoted Supreme Court Justices, court rulings, etc. All you've done is pretend that you have a better understanding than they did as you have not offered anything to the contrary. I can do you a whole thesis on natural rights to accompany the above... and all you will be doing is blowing smoke, claiming a power that the United States Supreme Court was never given.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the current Chief Justice is against you as well. The United States Supreme Court is not the legislative branch of government; you cannot steer me in order to change the subject; and NO, just because you can't control people does not mean you have a corner on the market of understanding.


I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. If you apply Washington's quote to the Heller decision, the logical conclusion is that the Supreme Court usurped the Constitution by changing the meaning of the second amendment that had been used for 200+ years.

The Supreme Court cannot ‘usurp’ the Constitution, that makes no sense.

Indeed, the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to establish the case law lower courts are to follow, and to invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution – in the case of Heller, DC’s handgun ban.
 
“There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other nations in the developed world. "

Commenting about "shooting victims" or "gun violence" does not necessarily indicate the level of violence in a nation for the simple reason that not all violent acts are committed with a gun or any other weapon.
It should be remembered that fire extinguishers and vehicle safety equipment are not actually needed at the time they are bought. They are purchased for a need that is not currently present and that you hope never is. The same can be true of guns.
 
The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias. It was the product of a discussion about the rights of the states versus the rights of the federal government and the states rights contingent wanted to make sure that the states had the capability to resist tyranny if necessary. Since that time, it's morphed into something entirely different but that's how our system works.

I don't trust the federal government at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

This is not a "rhetorical" question at all. It's very simple. Do you believe that governmental entities at all levels should not be allowed to ban the private ownership of any weapon?

If you start out with a false premise, like that have you stopped beating your wife variety of questions, you will get no traction here. I dismantled that argument you made in a rather long post on this thread. Shall I repeat it? Post # 306 completely destroys the misinformation you're posting.

Let's start by repeating the answer to your FIRST error:



Once you've done that go back to my long reply that dismantles your argument.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Rights of the people. Once you understand that (and not before) can your question be dealt with honestly.


I understand the Bill of Rights much better than you do. That is obvious. Your refusal to answer a very simple question and to try and divert the discussion elsewhere indicates that you have no intention of participating in a rational discussion.

You asked what the purpose of the second amendment WAS. The intent of the writers in the 18th century was clear. The Supreme Court has chosen to reinterpret it in the 21st century so fine. That's the interpretation we will go with today. If you really want to understand the original intent of the second amendment, you should read the text of discussions about it during the ratification process. It is very obvious what they were trying to do and the meaning of "bear arms" was very clear. However, that is not the subject I was trying to get you to discuss in a rational manner. I don't harbor any hope now that you will ever do so.


You have a rather high opinion of yourself, but I always like prefer that the founders speak for themselves:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Now, I've not only quoted the founders on the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms and its exact meaning, but I've quoted Supreme Court Justices, court rulings, etc. All you've done is pretend that you have a better understanding than they did as you have not offered anything to the contrary. I can do you a whole thesis on natural rights to accompany the above... and all you will be doing is blowing smoke, claiming a power that the United States Supreme Court was never given.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the current Chief Justice is against you as well. The United States Supreme Court is not the legislative branch of government; you cannot steer me in order to change the subject; and NO, just because you can't control people does not mean you have a corner on the market of understanding.


I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. If you apply Washington's quote to the Heller decision, the logical conclusion is that the Supreme Court usurped the Constitution by changing the meaning of the second amendment that had been used for 200+ years.

The Supreme Court cannot ‘usurp’ the Constitution, that makes no sense.

Indeed, the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to establish the case law lower courts are to follow, and to invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution – in the case of Heller, DC’s handgun ban.


You should study law before commenting on it. And you should READ my posts before commenting on them. So, for your convenience, as soon as I post this SECOND mini lesson, I will repost the first.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

Where did this Right to keep and bear Arms as intended by the founders come from?


"Willliam Blackstone, who “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation…”

This was Blackstone’s outlook:

Man … must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator… This will of his Maker is called the law of nature…. This law of nature…is of course superior to any other…. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force…from this original.”

Reliance on Blackstone is necessarily reliance upon natural law.

Natural Right Understandings at the Time of the Second Amendment

In searching for how the Second Amendment was understood at the time[5] it was enacted and the years that followed Heller notes the following:

  • Blackstone described fundamental rights to include: “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence…” (1769)
The Second Amendment: A Personal Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms | David J. Shestokas


On 2 November 1772 stated in a Boston Town Hall Meeting Samuel Adams said:

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."

(Source: The Annals of America, Volume 2 - 1755 - 1783 - Resistance and Revolution Encyclopaedia Britannica 1976)

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation. 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)

For those making the ludicrous argument that the Second Amendment granted the states a right to maintain a militia, their argument falls flat. I remind them of the first court cases at the STATE level wherein the STATES said that the Right to keep and bear Arms is above the law.

The FIRST United States Supreme Court ruling stated quite unequivocally that the Constitution does not grant the Right... ALL the states of that era (while the founders were still alive) referred to the Right of the People to be armed as a Right of the People AND as a natural right.

Scalia, probably wanting to appease the right ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms was an "individual right." Don't you love how the United States Supreme Court gets further and further from the meaning of the Second Amendment? But, I digress. Let us now repeat my first lesson on this for C_Clayton_ Jones
 
Reposted for C_Clayton_Jones

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60.
They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"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)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.
 
The Supreme Court cannot ‘usurp’ the Constitution, that makes no sense.

Indeed, the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to establish the case law lower courts are to follow, and to invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution – in the case of Heller, DC’s handgun ban.

Marbury V. Madison is part of the Constitution? :eek:

You Stalinists are sure smart.
 
C_Clayton_Jones, post: 19426172
The banning of AR 15s would not have the desired effect of ending gun crime and violence.

It doesn't need to 'end' all types of gun crimes and violence. That's a bar set way too high to discourage a try. The objective is to reduce the incidence of mass murder shootings with that type of firearm. The reason it may have less an effect now is the proliferation of assault rifles since the ban was lifted in 2004.

Since now there are so many assault rifles in existence thanks to no ban on manufacture and sale, a rational mind would conclude ttat it was bad law to allow the original ban to cease to exist.

It is therefore irrational to consider a law banning what it banned before to be bad law.

It was a good law. It was bad that it ended.
 
C_Clayton_Jones, post: 19426172
The banning of AR 15s would not have the desired effect of ending gun crime and violence.

It doesn't need to 'end' all types of gun crimes and violence. That's a bar set way too high to discourage a try. The objective is to reduce the incidence of mass murder shootings with that type of firearm. The reason it may have less an effect now is the proliferation of assault rifles since the ban was lifted in 2004.

Since now there are so many assault rifles in existence thanks to no ban on manufacture and sale, a rational mind would conclude ttat it was bad law to allow the original ban to cease to exist.

It is therefore irrational to consider a law banning what it banned before to be bad law.

It was a good law. It was bad that it ended.

Stop asking the same question over and over and somehow expecting a different answer.
You answer a couple for a change:
If it was such a good law why-after 10 yrs-could it not be shown to have accomplished anything?
Why revisit a non-functional law?
Why force a law on American people who have already plainly shown that retaining it is against their will?
 
Yes, if the SA is to be followed correctly, we need to have a 'well regulated' militia. You can start justifying your wanton civilian militia need to play with an assault rifle, by explaining who you fully accept is supposed to be regulating you 'well' so very well.

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789


We dont have anything close to what you have described. We have militia chaos and anarchy in this country, and you must be kidding if you think this is the case:

"The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army."

It does not look as if the American militia has the equipment and training to be a formidable check against our standing army. And most Americans wouldn't trust any kind of right wing based militia to be equipped and trained enough to even try.



There is a problem with this too;

"well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.'

The US military has regulations for everything. They Army and a legitimate militia if it was still needed would be regulated with all kinds of regulations.

Regulations are what keeps the US military correctly calibrated and functioning as expected.

James Madison truly meant to write 'well self-regulated militia without regulations' Kind of you to point that out.

Don't think GenZ is gonna buy that kind of BS any longer.
 
9thIDdoc, post: 19432731
Stop asking the same question over and over and somehow expecting a different answer.

There is not one single question on my post to which you are responding. Are you twitter-pated and flummoxed or something. That is a question, but it is the first tine I've asked it.
 
Ghost of a Rider
A militia is, by definition, comprised of citizens soldiers.

That's obvious. I'm trying to find who is supposed to be regulating our so called 'citizen soldiers' since one of them just shot up a high school and killed seventeen citizen non-soldiers.

Don't be ridiculous. 1.) There is no militia until the government calls for one. If they do, those who are willing volunteer. 2.) Not every gun owner is or will be in the militia. You can't be so myopic as to believe that. 3.) Whether or not Cruz was in a militia, his actions were his own. No one else is responsible. Not me, not other gun owners, not Trump and not the NRA.

The Second Amendment grants certain rights based upon having a well regulated militia. But when asked what and whom are regulating this 'militia' no one knows.

The militia is called up when needed and will be regulated at that time by serving military officers. That was the idea when it was written anyway.
The founders idea of the militias was all citizens would be serving part time in militias bearing arms in lieu of professional standing armies . Of course, the common folk would have to be guaranteed the right to bear arms or there would be no militias; thus we have the 2nd amendment. Yes, I know that makes no sense today just like the second amendment.

The founders as well as most colonist feared a professional standing army. They saw militias as the answer. Cost was low, they could be integrated into a national army if needed, and once the hostilities ended, they could be sent back home saving a ton a money. The stumbling block was much of the gentry and businessmen feared that the uprisings in Europe might spread to the US if the public had free access to arms as they did at that time. So in order to protect the militias, the congress acted to make sure that there would be no infringement to the right to bear arms insuring that militias could be formed. I think it was a good idea in it's day but it just didn't work. Military science and weaponry in 19th century became far more sophisticated, well beyond the capabilities of part time volunteers.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because I am a Tard.
 
Humorme, post: 19430594
And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

If that is so and we have no well regulated militia cspable and willing to not only overthrown fifty state governments, the Federal. Government and the will of the majority you might as well just STFU about any gun rightt, let alone try to cling to semi- automatic assauit tigjes.

The courts have adjusted to the modern technological era and there is no going back.

During the founding the difference between military rifles and hunting rifles was not much.

Since then the M1918 Browning was invented. If you think the Browning should be mass produced and sold to any individual who wants one or his right to bear arms is violated then you are not being the least bit reasonable and you are maladjusted to the era in which you were born. We should not pay attention to you or what you have to say and you CT about multinational corporations.
 
9thIDdoc, post: 19432731
Stop asking the same question over and over and somehow expecting a different answer.

There is not one single question on my post to which you are responding. Are you twitter-pated and flummoxed or something. That is a question, but it is the first tine I've asked it.

No. I have at considerable length explained to you what an actual assault rifle is and that questions about "assault rifles" cannot be answered until it is known exactly what you consider an assault rifle to be because you seem determined to remain ignorant. I have also explained what a militia is and has been. If you are going to ignore the answers don't expect you can expect your questions to be ignored. I also see no attempt of yours to answer questions I have asked you. In the unlikely event you are actually interested in this subject you may do well to review about 10 posts beginning with #284..
 
Ghost of a Rider
A militia is, by definition, comprised of citizens soldiers.

That's obvious. I'm trying to find who is supposed to be regulating our so called 'citizen soldiers' since one of them just shot up a high school and killed seventeen citizen non-soldiers.

Don't be ridiculous. 1.) There is no militia until the government calls for one. If they do, those who are willing volunteer. 2.) Not every gun owner is or will be in the militia. You can't be so myopic as to believe that. 3.) Whether or not Cruz was in a militia, his actions were his own. No one else is responsible. Not me, not other gun owners, not Trump and not the NRA.

The Second Amendment grants certain rights based upon having a well regulated militia. But when asked what and whom are regulating this 'militia' no one knows.

The militia is called up when needed and will be regulated at that time by serving military officers. That was the idea when it was written anyway.
The founders idea of the militias was all citizens would be serving part time in militias bearing arms in lieu of professional standing armies . Of course, the common folk would have to be guaranteed the right to bear arms or there would be no militias; thus we have the 2nd amendment. Yes, I know that makes no sense today just like the second amendment.

The founders as well as most colonist feared a professional standing army. They saw militias as the answer. Cost was low, they could be integrated into a national army if needed, and once the hostilities ended, they could be sent back home saving a ton a money. The stumbling block was much of the gentry and businessmen feared that the uprisings in Europe might spread to the US if the public had free access to arms as they did at that time. So in order to protect the militias, the congress acted to make sure that there would be no infringement to the right to bear arms insuring that militias could be formed. I think it was a good idea in it's day but it just didn't work. Military science and weaponry in 19th century became far more sophisticated, well beyond the capabilities of part time volunteers.

I agree with much of your post but not your conclusion. Militia units on both sides earned my respect in Vietnam and they often acquit themselves well in the ME and Africa. Not to mention 9/11.
 
I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because I am a Tard.

I'm sorry to hear that.
 
I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

Stupid. You can’t try to pigeonhole us into the answer you want.

It would be like me asking why you believe women should be allowed to abort their babies and you can’t say “it’s their right to do with their bodies anything they want to”, or “it’s not a human it’s a fetus”.

It’s a lie to say you want to understand, you just want something easy to ridicule.
 
I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

I don’t think anyone should have to justify their need/desire to have an assault rifle. There are many obvious reasons why people feel the need to own them.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top