CDZ Immigration and Gun Debate Similarity?

[jwoodie]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

 

[hjmick]

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

Good luck with that...

 

[TheOldSchool]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

I'm okay with banning assault immigrants

 

[JGalt]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

Apples and oranges. You have a constitutional right to own a firearm. There is no constitutional right to illegally cross the US border.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

 

[jwoodie]

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Could that be because wing nuts say all immigrants are the same?

 

[JGalt]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Does the Second Amendment have any specificity in regard to one type of firearm or another?

No. The Second Amendment did not differentiate between a single-shot black powder musket, or a Revolutionary War era cannon capable of hurling an explosive 20 pound ball downrange.

 

[JGalt]

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Could that be because wing nuts say all immigrants are the same?

You are sadly misinformed. No conservative or Republican I know of wants "all" immigrants deported. Only the illegal ones

 

[jwoodie]

Does the Second Amendment have any specificity in regard to one type of firearm or another?

No. The Second Amendment did not differentiate between a single-shot black powder musket, or a Revolutionary War era cannon capable of hurling an explosive 20 pound ball downrange.

Is that the current interpretation?

 

[jwoodie]

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Could that be because wing nuts say all immigrants are the same?

You are sadly misinformed. No conservative or Republican I know of wants "all" immigrants deported. Only the illegal ones

I was referring to left wing nuts.

 

[ding]

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

Sure. Go ahead.

 

[JGalt]

Does the Second Amendment have any specificity in regard to one type of firearm or another?

No. The Second Amendment did not differentiate between a single-shot black powder musket, or a Revolutionary War era cannon capable of hurling an explosive 20 pound ball downrange.

Is that the current interpretation?

The Second Amendment stands as it did in 1791. Not one single word has been changed, even though liberal judges have repeatedly tried to interpret more or less into it, than it stated...

"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."

Many liberal judges have tried to change the meaning of the amendment by assuming that the writers' interpretation of "well regulated Militia" was to mean the military. Their mis-interpretation of the first part was incorrect because "well regulated" during those times did not mean "subject to extensive government regulations." What it referred to was the property of something being in proper working order. Nor was the term "Militia" intended to represent the government's standing army. The Militia was made up of citizens: Farmer, bankers, carpenters, teachers, etc. So basically the Second Amendment was referring to the necessity that the armed citizens having the level of equipment and training necessary to be both an effective addition, or a formidable check upon the national government’s standing army if need be.

 

[JGalt]

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Could that be because wing nuts say all immigrants are the same?

You are sadly misinformed. No conservative or Republican I know of wants "all" immigrants deported. Only the illegal ones

I was referring to left wing nuts.

My mistake.

 

[JGalt]

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Could that be because wing nuts say all immigrants are the same?

They do. The left can't seem to differentiate between legal immigrants who have become American citizens, and illegal immigrants. They truly believe that illegals deserve constitutional rights.

 

[BULLDOG]

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Could that be because wing nuts say all immigrants are the same?

Not sure where you got that. Alex Jones Perhaps?

 

[BULLDOG]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Does the Second Amendment have any specificity in regard to one type of firearm or another?

No. The Second Amendment did not differentiate between a single-shot black powder musket, or a Revolutionary War era cannon capable of hurling an explosive 20 pound ball downrange.

The Supreme Court already said the right to own guns is not absolute. It's reasonable to limit the use of lots of different guns.

 

[oldsoul]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Does the Second Amendment have any specificity in regard to one type of firearm or another?

No. The Second Amendment did not differentiate between a single-shot black powder musket, or a Revolutionary War era cannon capable of hurling an explosive 20 pound ball downrange.

The Supreme Court already said the right to own guns is not absolute. It's reasonable to limit the use of lots of different guns.

Could you clarify for me? Was it use, or OWNERSHIP? There is a very significant difference. Please cite the actual ruling. I would like to be able to verify with my own eyes. Thanks.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

Could that be because gun nuts say all guns are the same?

Does the Second Amendment have any specificity in regard to one type of firearm or another?

No. The Second Amendment did not differentiate between a single-shot black powder musket, or a Revolutionary War era cannon capable of hurling an explosive 20 pound ball downrange.

The Supreme Court already said the right to own guns is not absolute. It's reasonable to limit the use of lots of different guns.

Could you clarify for me? Was it use, or OWNERSHIP? There is a very significant difference. Please cite the actual ruling. I would like to be able to verify with my own eyes. Thanks.

Thanks for catching my mistake. It was ownership.
In Heller, Scalia specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

 

[jwoodie]

Many liberal judges have tried to change the meaning of the amendment by assuming that the writers' interpretation of "well regulated Militia" was to mean the military. Their mis-interpretation of the first part was incorrect because "well regulated" during those times did not mean "subject to extensive government regulations." What it referred to was the property of something being in proper working order. Nor was the term "Militia" intended to represent the government's standing army. The Militia was made up of citizens: Farmer, bankers, carpenters, teachers, etc. So basically the Second Amendment was referring to the necessity that the armed citizens having the level of equipment and training necessary to be both an effective addition, or a formidable check upon the national government’s standing army if need be.

Your analysis seems nonsensical: If "well regulated" means "in proper working order" and "Militia" means "citizens," then does a "well regulated Militia" means citizens in good working order?

Furthermore, "armed citizens having the the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective addition to the national government's standing army" is the very definition of military regulation. (Besides, a standing army is the last thing the Founders wanted the national government to have.)

Your criticism of liberal judges creating new interpretation of plain language is well founded, but your own interpretation does no better.

 

[ding]

Many liberal judges have tried to change the meaning of the amendment by assuming that the writers' interpretation of "well regulated Militia" was to mean the military. Their mis-interpretation of the first part was incorrect because "well regulated" during those times did not mean "subject to extensive government regulations." What it referred to was the property of something being in proper working order. Nor was the term "Militia" intended to represent the government's standing army. The Militia was made up of citizens: Farmer, bankers, carpenters, teachers, etc. So basically the Second Amendment was referring to the necessity that the armed citizens having the level of equipment and training necessary to be both an effective addition, or a formidable check upon the national government’s standing army if need be.

Your analysis seems nonsensical: If "well regulated" means "in proper working order" and "Militia" means "citizens," then does a "well regulated Militia" means citizens in good working order?

Furthermore, "armed citizens having the the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective addition to the national government's standing army" is the very definition of military regulation. (Besides, a standing army is the last thing the Founders wanted the national government to have.)

Your criticism of liberal judges creating new interpretation of plain language is well founded, but your own interpretation does no better.

The flaw in your logic is obvious.

Clearly the founding fathers intended for the 2nd Amendment to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government.

It is intended to serve as a deterrent.

What is it that you believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to do? And what is the basis for your belief?