CDZ How We Will Finally Deal With Guns America

[BlackSand]

Oh golly jeepers I appreciate the cashews but it still doesn't address the blessed question, does it.

Why goodness gracious me, no it doesn't.

For goodness sakes ...Now you are just being difficult ...

I was about to essplain that to you in a PM but your profile is locked
Dadgum it to aitche eee double hockey sticks

We would have to be friends first ... I'll think about it ...

.

 

[eflatminor]

Not going to bother, done it too many times. In the end, Molon Labe.

 

[Pogo]

Oh golly jeepers I appreciate the cashews but it still doesn't address the blessed question, does it.

Why goodness gracious me, no it doesn't.

For goodness sakes ...Now you are just being difficult ...

I was about to essplain that to you in a PM but your profile is locked
Dadgum it to aitche eee double hockey sticks

We would have to be friends first ... I'll think about it ...

.

Gosh whiz that would be swell. I could show you my cashews. They're the bee's knees.

 

[westwall]

I don't have an explanation for it. I don't think anyone does. I'm noting that it's a grammatical train wreck.
It's not that a Constitution needs to be grammatical; it's that a Constitution needs to be clear. This isn't. It looks unfinished. It looks like somebody with a wig must have looked at the finished product and wailed, "who left that in there?"

Nomsayin'?

As long as any discussion of what it means and what it doesn't mean is a relevant question---- so is this.

Of course I understand what you are saying.

But ... It is only unclear if you want it to mean something it doesn't say.
If you read what is written ... And don't try to assume what isn't written ... Then it is clearer.
You assume they may have made some kind of mistake because it doesn't specifically answer a question you want answered.

You want that question answered for your reasons ... Of which they may not have been equally concerned.
In short ... Enjoy your cashews ... .

Au contraire, I'm assuming nothing. The language in a Constitution is very specific and fussed over until it's just right. That means whatever the purpose of this clause is --- it's not there by accident. And that means somebody wanted it there, for some specific reason. We just don't know what it is.

Again --- as long as there's any discussion on what 2A means and doesn't mean ---- and there always will be (can I own a nuke? A bazooka? A shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile?) --- then this is part of that question.

Well, the first artillery unit in the United States was the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston. A PRIVATE artillery militia. Annnnnd the first Naval vessels were PRIVATEERS. You know PRIVATE ships that waged war against the commercial interests of the nation we happened to be at war with.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No..."shall not be infringed:

Most of these people don’t have a working knowledge of the definition of that word. It’s a shame too. It’s a rather important word...

WHich word? “Infringed”? It's related to the word “fringe”, which refers to the barest edges of a thing, or to a form of decoration that is applied to that edge. To “infringe” is to touch or cross that edge.

What the Second Amendment is saying is that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edge of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Any act of government which even touches this right is illegal. When you understand what “infringed” means, in the context of the Second Amendment, then you understand that it is the clearest and strongest language found anywhere in the Constitution. It states a purpose, decares a right, identifies this right as belonging to the people (as opposed to any level of government, see the Tenth Amendment) and tells government to keep its filthy hands away from this right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, a new AWB would never pass Constitutional muster.

Nor should it. The US V Miller decision of 1934 makes it pretty plain that only military style firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled because it "had no foreseeable military purpose".

I think it's important to point out that in making this ruling, the Supreme Court had only heard one side of the argument. Nobody was there to argue Jack Miller's side. Had Mr. Miller been represented, then there is probably a very good chance that the court would have been dissuaded away from such a limited view of the Second Amendment, and held that it protected a much broader range of arms than just those that had military application. Certainly, a competent representative of Miller's side would have called the court's attention to the fact that at the time, a short-barreled shotgun was, in fact, a standard weapon in use by our Army, which, by the logic that the court expressed, would have compelled them to rule the other way, that Mr. Miller did indeed have the right under the Second Amendment to possess this weapon.

In any event, the U.S. vs. Miller ruling might indeed allow a ban on so-called “assault weapons” to stand; but not because of their superficial resemblance to military weapons, but rather because they are not true military-grade weapons. A strict application of U.S. vs Sullivan would hold that the weapons that we most have the right to possess would be weapons comparable to those currently issued to our soldiers—not “assault weapons”, but true assault rifles capable of fully-automatic and/or burst-shot modes as well as semiautomatic operation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ it’s subject to restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

But Congress must first act to indeed implement those restrictions, which it refuses to do.

Where, in the words “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for Congress or any other part of government to infringe the right being addressed?

 

[froggy]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Wrong ain't gonna happen. Get better security at schools.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

you can't buy alcohol till 21...if that was the case here---no one would've died
he could've used a bomb--but much much harder to build, and activate

How do you know that? What is to keep the 19 year old who has a drivers license from plowing his car into the crowd of kids as they get out of the building? Stupid is as stupid votes and they vote Democrat...

 

[Taz]

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ it’s subject to restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

But Congress must first act to indeed implement those restrictions, which it refuses to do.

Where, in the words “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for Congress or any other part of government to infringe the right being addressed?

They already have, as you're not allowed to buy grenades, rocket launchers, surface to air missiles, mines, cannons and their ammo... all kinds of weapons have already been infringed upon.

 

[BlackSand]

Where, in the words “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for Congress or any other part of government to infringe the right being addressed?

They already have, as you're not allowed to buy grenades, rocket launchers, surface to air missiles, mines, cannons and their ammo... all kinds of weapons have already been infringed upon.

But ... That doesn't answer the question.

I don't believe he was asking if Congress already has infringed upon our rights.
It is you that seems to be suggesting that a wrong and unconstitutional act by Congress justifies doing it again.

If you would like to pretend the Constitution means something it doesn't say ...
And then grant Congress the power and authority to do something the actual language in the Constitution clearly forbids ...
Then there is no reason anyone should take you seriously.

.

 

[Taz]

Where, in the words “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority for Congress or any other part of government to infringe the right being addressed?

They already have, as you're not allowed to buy grenades, rocket launchers, surface to air missiles, mines, cannons and their ammo... all kinds of weapons have already been infringed upon.

But ... That doesn't answer the question.

I don't believe he was asking if Congress already has infringed upon our rights.
It is you that seems to be suggesting that a wrong and unconstitutional act by Congress justifies doing it again.

If you would like to pretend the Constitution means something it doesn't say ...
And then grant Congress the power and authority to do something the actual language in the Constitution clearly forbids ...
Then there is no reason anyone should take you seriously.

.

Dude's complaining about having the 2nd infringed on, when I'm saying it already is being infringed upon, so why aren't you upset about that? Why all the sudden outrage?

 

[BlackSand]

Dude's complaining about having the 2nd infringed on, when I'm saying it already is being infringed upon, so why aren't you upset about that? Why all the sudden outrage?

It does not require outrage to say ... "No More"
What has happened does not mean that it should happen again.

There is nothing the people nor Congress have to offer as a compromise.
We don't have to be outraged nor upset to tell them they can go pound sand ...

.

 

[Taz]

Dude's complaining about having the 2nd infringed on, when I'm saying it already is being infringed upon, so why aren't you upset about that? Why all the sudden outrage?

Is does not require outrage to say ... "No More"
What has happened does not mean that it should happen again.

There is nothing the people nor Congress have to offer as a compromise.
We don't have to be outraged nor upset to tell them they can go pound sand ...

.

He's not saying "no more", he's saying that the 2nd shouldn't be infringed upon. I'm merely pointing out that it already has been infringed upon, and asking where's his outrage for that infringement, since infringement is what he's upset about.

 

[BlackSand]

He's not saying "no more", he's saying that the 2nd shouldn't be infringed upon. I'm merely pointing out that it already has been infringed upon, and asking where's his outrage for that infringement, since infringement is what he's upset about.

No .. He is accurately stating the Constitution forbids the infringement.

Shoulds, coulds and woulds ... Don't change what the Constitution actually states.
Any previous violation of the Constitution does not justify further violation of the Constitution.

There is no indication that he is not dissatisfied with previous measures that violated the Constitution.
In any case ... Outrage or being upset wouldn't change what the Constitution actually states nor what infringements have already taken place.



.

 

[Taz]

He's not saying "no more", he's saying that the 2nd shouldn't be infringed upon. I'm merely pointing out that it already has been infringed upon, and asking where's his outrage for that infringement, since infringement is what he's upset about.

No .. He is accurately stating the Constitution forbids the infringement.

Shoulds, coulds and woulds ... Don't change what the Constitution actually states.
Any previous violation of the Constitution does not justify further violation of the Constitution.

There is no indication that he is not dissatisfied with previous measures that violated the Constitution.
In any case ... Outrage or being upset wouldn't change what the Constitution actually states nor what infringements have already taken place.



.

Ok, so you guys are cherry picking your outrage. How lame.

 

[BlackSand]

Ok, so you guys are cherry picking your outrage. How lame.

At what point did you think I am outraged ...

When I stated what is written in the Constitution ...
When I indicated that violations of the Constitution do not justify further violation ...
Or when I indicated the opposition has nothing to offer as a compromise and there is no reason we should entertain their ignorance?

I think you are trying to see outrage that doesn't exist ...

.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Ok, so you guys are cherry picking your outrage. How lame.

At what point did you think I am outraged ...

When I stated what is written in the Constitution ...
When I indicated that violations of the Constitution do not justify further violation ...
Or when indicated the opposition has nothing to offer as a compromise and there is no reason we should entertain their ignorance?

I think you are trying to see outrage that doesn't exist.

.

Liberalism is a mental disorder and #4 justifies it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

No, it isn't. It is as clear as a bell. The fact that you choose to ignore the common meaning of the English language at the time is on you.

It's hardly the first time I've brought this up but --- care to have a go at explaining what the purpose of that clause is?

Again, no other Amendment makes an argument for its existence. Nor does any need to; a Constitution is a simple declaration of "this is how we will roll". No explanation is necessary. Yet there's the 2A, all by itself, explaining its reasoning. Why would it do that?

To stop people like the OP cold.

You're not gonna confiscate arms in America, leftist. You're not Hitler, and we're not the Jews of Germany.

If anything, people should have more access to more guns.

 

[Moonglow]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Another way to stop all this gun violence is to round up every fucking miserable liberal(that is all of them) and send them to Cuba, when all the unhappy, law breaking, worthless liberals are no longer in this country, then the rest of US would be happy and no one would be killing anymore.

It is just that simple.

I apologize for cursing on the CDZ, but if some idiot wants an open debate they need to post it not here.
View attachment 176880

Usual right wing hate speech..