CDZ Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

[danielpalos]

not to mention, an increase in accidents due to more, rather than less, non-well regulated militia having access to guns.

And here are something called facts.....and statistics that show you are wrong...

First, non fatal gun accident rates as we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s...and 4.7 million people carrying guns in 1997 to 357-400 million guns in private hands in 2016 and 15 million people carrying guns for self defense....

Notice...the accident rate is going down, not up....you are wrong...

Non fatal gun injury stats from 1993......

Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-Related Injuries -- United States, 1993-1997
1993... 104,390
1994... 89,744
1995... 84,322
1996... 69,649
1997... 64,207
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm
1998... 79,384
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

CDC non fatal gun accident.....

2001.... 17,696

2002... 17,579

2003... 18,941

2004... 16,555

2005... 15,388

2006... 14,678

2007... 15,698

2008... 17,215

2009... 18,610

2010... 14,161

2011... 14,675

2012... 17,362

2013... 16,864

2014..... 15,928

does that factor for safety regulations? guns and pools should have similarities.

Yes....you were wrong.....the actual statistics from the Centers for Disease control show you are wrong.....gun ownership and carrying guns for self defense went from 200 million to 357-400 million....from 4.7 million people carrying guns to 15 million people carrying guns for self defense....and non fatal gun accidents have gone down...as have fatal gun accidents....

that study does not factor for gun control laws enacted in the mean time. apples and oranges. and quite disingenuous of the right, to claim those statistics due merely to gun loving.

Twit..ot isn't a study..it os simply counting bodies........amd counting guns bought and permits handed out........our gun ownership level has increased....our gun murder rate went down 47%.....our gun accident rate both fatal and non fatal went down....proving that the basic point of the anti gun movement...that more guns mean more crime...os a lie......their entire reason for existence is a lie.

gun control laws have changed since then, and felons are denied and disparaged in their Individual Liberty, even including, for life.

 

[sakinago]

Certainly, it would be nice to have the greatest amount of free choice and liberty for adults; no prohibition, no identity cards or controls, no pollution and poisoning imposed upon the innocent, etc. Rational people know that carrying firearms all the time is unnecessary (with tendencies to paranoia) and dangerous.

not to mention, an increase in accidents due to more, rather than less, non-well regulated militia having access to guns.

And now accidental death by gun...again, from the CDC....notice again that as more Americans owned and carried guns the rate has gone down, not up......you are wrong...

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....486

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

due to gun control laws.

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

 

[Pogo]

not to mention, an increase in accidents due to more, rather than less, non-well regulated militia having access to guns.

And now accidental death by gun...again, from the CDC....notice again that as more Americans owned and carried guns the rate has gone down, not up......you are wrong...

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....486

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

due to gun control laws.

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

 

[sakinago]

And now accidental death by gun...again, from the CDC....notice again that as more Americans owned and carried guns the rate has gone down, not up......you are wrong...

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....486

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

due to gun control laws.

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

 

[Pogo]

due to gun control laws.

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

 

[FA_Q2]

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

That does not change the amendment. Given that well regulated militias are necessary it is the right of the people to bear arms.

No matter how you parse the first statement, the right is STILL protected for the people.

 

[danielpalos]

not to mention, an increase in accidents due to more, rather than less, non-well regulated militia having access to guns.

And now accidental death by gun...again, from the CDC....notice again that as more Americans owned and carried guns the rate has gone down, not up......you are wrong...

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....486

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

due to gun control laws.

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

 

[danielpalos]

due to gun control laws.

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[danielpalos]

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

Because our Founding Fathers thought of every Thing.

 

[danielpalos]

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

That does not change the amendment. Given that well regulated militias are necessary it is the right of the people to bear arms.

No matter how you parse the first statement, the right is STILL protected for the people.

Only for the People who are a well regulated militia, for the security needs of a free State.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

The right wing wants to eliminate sanctuary cities for illegals. 10USC311 is also federal law and enjoys federal supremacy.

 

[Pogo]

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

That does not change the amendment. Given that well regulated militias are necessary it is the right of the people to bear arms.

No matter how you parse the first statement, the right is STILL protected for the people.

Didn''t say it does. I'm asking, "why is it there"? Yes it assumes a given and proceeds from there, but why would it need to do that?

A Constitution, whether a country, state, organization, whatever, is an absolute. It's the last word. It isn't making any kind of argument; it simply decrees. We didn't get an Amendment that says "The right of Mrs. Belfry to not have to wait for her lush husband to come home, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors is hereby prohibited" and we didn't get another one that said "Yanno what, after seeing how Al Capone and the gangs and the moonshiners reacted, faggetaboudit, the eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed". No justifications are necessary.

Constitutional language is not chosen carelessly. Yet this is the ONLY Amendment, and I'd bet the only place in the Constitution at all, where it actually steps out of character to make an argument to justify itself. I'm asking why they would have done that. For what purpose. "It doesn't change the Amendment" is not an answer to that question.

That's what I mean by 'has never been explained"..



This also fails to answer that question, although hat tip for the cunning capitalized noun

Because our Founding Fathers thought of every Thing

 

[danielpalos]

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

That does not change the amendment. Given that well regulated militias are necessary it is the right of the people to bear arms.

No matter how you parse the first statement, the right is STILL protected for the people.

Didn''t say it does. I'm asking, "why is it there"? Yes it assumes a given and proceeds from there, but why would it need to do that?

A Constitution, whether a country, state, organization, whatever, is an absolute. It's the last word. It isn't making any kind of argument; it simply decrees. We didn't get an Amendment that says "The right of Mrs. Belfry to not have to wait for her lush husband to come home, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors is hereby prohibited" and we didn't get another one that said "Yanno what, after seeing how Al Capone and the gangs and the moonshiners reacted, faggetaboudit, the eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed". No justifications are necessary.

Constitutional language is not chosen carelessly. Yet this is the ONLY Amendment, and I'd bet the only place in the Constitution at all, where it actually steps out of character to make an argument to justify itself. I'm asking why they would have done that. For what purpose. "It doesn't change the Amendment" is not an answer to that question.

That's what I mean by 'has never been explained"..



This also fails to answer that question, although hat tip for the cunning capitalized noun

Because our Founding Fathers thought of every Thing

To specifically address the issue of natural rights regarding Arms. Only well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[2aguy]

And now accidental death by gun...again, from the CDC....notice again that as more Americans owned and carried guns the rate has gone down, not up......you are wrong...

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....486

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

due to gun control laws.

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

No.....as actual facts show, from the CDC and the FBI, as more Americans own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down by 47%....and our accident rates went down as well...you are just wrong.

 

[sakinago]

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

It's not a conditional clause. That's what you're trying to insert. It's a declaration that a militia outside of the standing army is necessary to the security of the free state. A standing army by itself represents a threat to the free state as we have seen so many times throughout history.

And you can look at how the 2nd was actually practiced. As well as the writings of the founders concerning the 2nd to understand their intentions if your having so much confusion about it.

 

[sakinago]

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

That does not change the amendment. Given that well regulated militias are necessary it is the right of the people to bear arms.

No matter how you parse the first statement, the right is STILL protected for the people.

Didn''t say it does. I'm asking, "why is it there"? Yes it assumes a given and proceeds from there, but why would it need to do that?

A Constitution, whether a country, state, organization, whatever, is an absolute. It's the last word. It isn't making any kind of argument; it simply decrees. We didn't get an Amendment that says "The right of Mrs. Belfry to not have to wait for her lush husband to come home, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors is hereby prohibited" and we didn't get another one that said "Yanno what, after seeing how Al Capone and the gangs and the moonshiners reacted, faggetaboudit, the eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed". No justifications are necessary.

Constitutional language is not chosen carelessly. Yet this is the ONLY Amendment, and I'd bet the only place in the Constitution at all, where it actually steps out of character to make an argument to justify itself. I'm asking why they would have done that. For what purpose. "It doesn't change the Amendment" is not an answer to that question.

That's what I mean by 'has never been explained"..



This also fails to answer that question, although hat tip for the cunning capitalized noun

Because our Founding Fathers thought of every Thing

This is a crock argument, they have to drop a comma out to semi validate their stance, despite the language still being clear. The practice of the 2nd being more clear, and the writings of the founders intentions making it even more clear.There are Ivy League constitutional law professors who are very pro gun control who agree with. You want more gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment then work from there.

 

[danielpalos]

due to gun control laws.

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

No.....as actual facts show, from the CDC and the FBI, as more Americans own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down by 47%....and our accident rates went down as well...you are just wrong.

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

 

[sakinago]

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

No.....as actual facts show, from the CDC and the FBI, as more Americans own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down by 47%....and our accident rates went down as well...you are just wrong.

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

 

[danielpalos]

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

No.....as actual facts show, from the CDC and the FBI, as more Americans own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down by 47%....and our accident rates went down as well...you are just wrong.

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

short attention span? it is about claiming more guns equals less crime, but omitting gun control laws as an effect. the analogy is similar to automobile statistics.

 

[2aguy]

You should give up while you are behind.........4.7 million people actually carried guns in 1997...now, in 2016 there are 15 million.......more people carrying guns...and all those statistics went down, not up....

You are wrong.

the right complains about more gun control now, than they used to. that should be reflected in any study.

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

No.....as actual facts show, from the CDC and the FBI, as more Americans own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down by 47%....and our accident rates went down as well...you are just wrong.

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

And you are wrong. The actual stats say everything.......

 

[2aguy]

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

No.....as actual facts show, from the CDC and the FBI, as more Americans own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down by 47%....and our accident rates went down as well...you are just wrong.

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

short attention span? it is about claiming more guns equals less crime, but omitting gun control laws as an effect. the analogy is similar to automobile statistics.

Nope...since criminals do not obey gun control laws and 90% of murderers are already convicted felons who can't buy, own or carry guns.....gun control laws did not lower the gun murder rate...

More guns in the hands of more law abiding Americans...and our gun murder rate went down 47% from the 1990s to today....which shows that the primary belief of anti gunners...that more guns = more crime....is a lie....it just doesn't work that way.....so their entire argument is a fail....and based on nothing more than their emotions....and not based in truth, facts or the reality of gun ownership in the United States.

Our carry laws have relaxed since the 1990s, not increased...we had 4.7 million people carrying guns in 1997 and we now have 15 million people carrying guns in 2016....and our gun murder rate went down 47% and our gun accident rates also went down.....so you are wrong......