Liberals in Illinois demand firearm confiscation

[Bob Blaylock]

I mean states do regulate firearms ... That's why the firearms laws vary between states.

The Second Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it is the highest law in this nation.

Yes, states break the law, by infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Criminals do not obey the law; that is what makes them criminals.

Foolishly, we allow, and even sometimes demand, criminality from our government. What we ought to be demanding is that those among our public servants who refuse to obey the Constitution should be arrested, and thrown in prison for a very, very long time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Liberals are dishonest.

The lying bastards tell you they "support the Second Amendment" and are for "common sense gun control" but then their action is always for banning and confiscation.

Here the filthy ass Libtards in Illinois are demanding gun confiscation.

Don't ever trust a Liberal with either your money, Liberty or security because they will lie to you.

This is despicable.

Illinois House Passes Bill Requiring 18-20-Year-Olds to Hand Over Certain Semi-Automatic Firearms

Illinois Bill Requiring 18-20-Year-Olds to Hand Over Certain Semi-Automatic Firearms Moves to Senate

A bill requiring 18-20 year olds to hand over or transfer ownership of heretofore legally possessed “assault weapons” is gaining sponsors in the Illinois Senate after passing the House last month.

The bill, HB 1465, was sponsored in the House by Rep. Michelle Mussman (D-Schaumburg) and passed by a vote of 64-51 on February 28.

After being introduced in the upper house by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), the bill has added seven co-sponsors in the last week. Notable among them was Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove), the NRA “A” rated 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.

The NRA-ILA described the weapons covered by HB 1465 as “commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.” The bill also requires 18-20-year-olds to forfeit ownership of any magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Settle the fuck down!! What do these kids need semi auto weapons for?? What does anybody need them for ? They were not even conceived of when the 2nd amendment was written.

 

[BlackSand]

The Second Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it is the highest law in this nation.

Yes, states break the law, by infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Criminals do not obey the law; that is what makes them criminals.

Foolishly, we allow, and even sometimes demand, criminality from our government. What we ought to be demanding is that those among our public servants who refuse to obey the Constitution should be arrested, and thrown in prison for a very, very long time.

You may be foolish enough to let the state you live in violate your rights ... It's not that way in the state where I live.
I would suggest you get off your ass and take care of business ...

.

 

[BlackSand]

Settle the fuck down!! What do these kids need semi auto weapons for?? What does anybody need them for ? They were not even conceived of when the 2nd amendment was written.

Why did the Second Amendment allow the People the right to bear arms?

It didn't say a fucking thing about hunting or sport ...
Guess again if that is all you can come up with.

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Liberals are dishonest.

The lying bastards tell you they "support the Second Amendment" and are for "common sense gun control" but then their action is always for banning and confiscation.

Here the filthy ass Libtards in Illinois are demanding gun confiscation.

Don't ever trust a Liberal with either your money, Liberty or security because they will lie to you.

This is despicable.

Illinois House Passes Bill Requiring 18-20-Year-Olds to Hand Over Certain Semi-Automatic Firearms

Illinois Bill Requiring 18-20-Year-Olds to Hand Over Certain Semi-Automatic Firearms Moves to Senate

A bill requiring 18-20 year olds to hand over or transfer ownership of heretofore legally possessed “assault weapons” is gaining sponsors in the Illinois Senate after passing the House last month.

The bill, HB 1465, was sponsored in the House by Rep. Michelle Mussman (D-Schaumburg) and passed by a vote of 64-51 on February 28.

After being introduced in the upper house by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), the bill has added seven co-sponsors in the last week. Notable among them was Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove), the NRA “A” rated 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.

The NRA-ILA described the weapons covered by HB 1465 as “commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.” The bill also requires 18-20-year-olds to forfeit ownership of any magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.

You do realize the original intent of the 2nd was to preserve slavery, don't you

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the framers knew the difference -- see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were totally clear on that... and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Settle the fuck down!! What do these kids need semi auto weapons for?? What does anybody need them for ? They were not even conceived of when the 2nd amendment was written.

Why did the Second Amendment allow the People the right to bear arms?

It didn't say a fucking thing about hunting or sport ...
Guess again if that is all you can come up with.

.

No rights are absolute and there is plenty of room for interpretation of "the right to bear arms" What about hunting and sport.....?Do people use AR 15s to hunt dear? If they do it is not sport,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What do these kids need semi auto weapons for?? What does anybody need them for ? They were not even conceived of when the 2nd amendment was written.

They need them to protect themselves from filthy old predatory sexual perverts such as those whom you defend.

 

[BlackSand]

No rights are absolute and there is plenty of room for interpretation of "the right to bear arms" What about hunting and sport.....?Do people use AR 15s to hunt dear? If they do it is not sport,

It doesn't matter ... You are attempting to make a false argument.

The Founding Fathers didn't ensure the People had the right to bear arms so they could hunt deer.
Whether or not you shoot deer with the firearms makes no difference ... Your nefarious attempts to suggest otherwise is simply a glimpse into your actual intent ...

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What do these kids need semi auto weapons for?? What does anybody need them for ? They were not even conceived of when the 2nd amendment was written.

They need them to protect themselves from filthy old predatory sexual perverts such as those whom you defend.

Wow!! Your mind is so fucking diseased that even on a thread about guns, you have to invoke sexual content that the voices in your head are tormenting you with. Keep that shit up and I'll get you banned from this thread like I did the last time that you slandered me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No rights are absolute and there is plenty of room for interpretation of "the right to bear arms" What about hunting and sport.....?Do people use AR 15s to hunt dear? If they do it is not sport,

It doesn't matter ... You are attempting to make a false argument.

The Founding Fathers didn't ensure the People had the right to bear arms so they could hunt deer.
Whether or not you shoot deer with the firearms makes no difference ... Your nefarious attempts to suggest otherwise is simply a glimpse into your actual intent ...

.

We need to get back to the founders intent and the question of whether or not it means an individual right to bear arms, and if it means any and all types of arms.

Remember the part about a well regulated Militia?

I have already documented the fact that the intent was to preserve slavery

Another intent was to preclude the need for a standing army , which they feared.

As far as type of weapons go, I'm sure that the founders never envisioned what we have now. That is why our framework of constitutional law is intended to evolve and adapt to unforeseen developments in the modern world. Yes I know that is a liberal progressive view but it is a valid view. No doubt that Scalia would have a different take on it.

Consider the question of whether you think the founders would have wanted these weapons of terror in the hands of everyone and anyone who wanted them. You can bleat all you want about your second Amendment rights but kids in schools also have rights-to life.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I mean states do regulate firearms ... That's why the firearms laws vary between states.

The Second Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it is the highest law in this nation.

Yes, states break the law, by infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Criminals do not obey the law; that is what makes them criminals.

Foolishly, we allow, and even sometimes demand, criminality from our government. What we ought to be demanding is that those among our public servants who refuse to obey the Constitution should be arrested, and thrown in prison for a very, very long time.

That is a pretty ridged, shallow and anti intellectual viewpoint. You do know that there are other possible interpretations. Worse than ignoring them is the fact that you present your opinion AS FACT . That is a logical fallacy know as an appeal to ignorance.

The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean?

Americans have been thinking about the second amendment as an individual right for generations,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “You can find state supreme courts in the mid-1800s where judges say the second amendment protects an individual right.”

But for the 70 years or so before a supreme court decision in 2008, he said, “the supreme court and federal courts held that it only applied in the context of militias, the right of states to protect themselves from federal interference”.

In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4 , overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the country’s history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an

Read and learn

 

[BlackSand]

We need to get back to the founders intent and the question of whether or not it means an individual right to bear arms, and if it means any and all types of arms.

Remember the part about a well regulated Militia?

I have already documented the fact that the intent was to preserve slavery

Another intent was to preclude the need for a standing army , which they feared.

As far as type of weapons go, I'm sure that the founders never envisioned what we have now. That is why our framework of constitutional law is intended to evolve and adapt to unforeseen developments in the modern world. Yes I know that is a liberal progressive view but it is a valid view. No doubt that Scalia would have a different take on it.

Consider the question of whether you think the founders would have wanted these weapons of terror in the hands of everyone and anyone who wanted them. You can bleat all you want about your second Amendment rights but kids in schools also have rights-to life.

Yeah nit-wit ... You can read the part about the militia ... You can read the part about defense of the free state ...
You can read the part about the people ... And how their right shall not be infringed.
It doesn't matter if they could envision advances in firearms ... They were pretty damn clear about why they were ensuring the people the right to have them.

You think they were talking about hunting deer ... Damn dude ...

If you want to ask me what the Founding Fathers would think about Progressives today ...
They'd shoot your ass and leave your body to rot in the street.

.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You do realize the original intent of the 2nd was to preserve slavery, don't you

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the framers knew the difference -- see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were totally clear on that... and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

That's a flat-out lie, authored and published by those who know that it is a lie, and intended to lie about it.

https://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965

Still, however committed one may be to a political outcome, it serves no purpose to make historical arguments that are demonstrably wrong, misleading and inconsistent with what happened. Hartmann does not serve his cause well by purporting to write history when his version of history is mostly wrong, and very misleading.

Hartmann begins by arguing that "the real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says 'State' instead of 'Country' " was that the framers wanted "to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote."
Hartmann implies that the Second Amendment was adopted (or at least written) to get Virginia's "vote" for ratification of the Constitution, which took place in July 1788. But this is not even remotely true. In 1788 the Second Amendment was not yet written and was not part of the debate over ratification of the Constitution.​

 

[BlackSand]

That is a pretty ridged, shallow and anti intellectual viewpoint. You do know that there are other possible interpretations. Worse than ignoring them is the fact that you present your opinion AS FACT . That is a logical fallacy know as an appeal to ignorance.

The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean?

Americans have been thinking about the second amendment as an individual right for generations,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “You can find state supreme courts in the mid-1800s where judges say the second amendment protects an individual right.”

But for the 70 years or so before a supreme court decision in 2008, he said, “the supreme court and federal courts held that it only applied in the context of militias, the right of states to protect themselves from federal interference”.

In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4 , overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the country’s history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an

Read and learn

Read and Learn ... If you have to interpret the Constitution to mean something it doesn't say just because you like it that way ... You're wrong.
You attempting to make up facts and arguments about shooting deer is just bullshit ... Not facts.

.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That is a pretty ridged, shallow and anti intellectual viewpoint. You do know that there are other possible interpretations. Worse than ignoring them is the fact that you present your opinion AS FACT . That is a logical fallacy know as an appeal to ignorance.

You're not fooling anyone. What you mean by “…other possible interpretations…” is ways to try to twist a clearly-written sentence to try to claim that it means something other than what it clearly says. The Second Amendment couldn't be any more clear than it is; it states a purpose, identifies a right, clarifies that the right so identified belongs to the people (that is, not to the states, the federal government, nor any other part of government) and explicitly forbids this right from being infringed.