Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[The Rabbi]

Why don't you save some time and just put "I don't like CurveLight" in your sig? It's better than quoting me in every thread just to show your affinity for returning to the first grade.

Let's do something crazy and look at the Second.....

"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."

Explain how a bunch of individuals who never meet fall under the category of a well regulat
ed militia.

There was this case decided in some rinky dink court about a year or so ago. It's called "Heller." The majority decision was written by a cat named "Scalia." Go look up the case and see his discussion of the "militia". If you have any other questions after that please come back and ask.

Typical. You never attempt to support anything you and and completely ignore anything that shows you don't know what you are talking about.

No, you're right. Citing the majority opinion which offers an authoritative discussion of the issue isn't supporting the argument at all. Better to just spout off a bunch of uninformed opinions and then call names. Like you do.

 

[JD_2B]

The fallacy in the logic is that just because they are released, they are rehabilitated.

Recidivism rates

As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom but cross-country statistical comparisons are often questionable. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.
The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:

• Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
  
• Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
  
• The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
• Recidivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noooo..not that the system should rehabilitate- unless a parole board is involved, of course. The parole board DECIDES that the person is rehabilitated and safe for release. (Then they slap another thousand rules on them that make a violation and re-entry into the system quite easy, indeed)
But that their PUNISHMENT is over, yes.. This is a SENTENCE for either a single or multiple crimes. When the sentencing period ends, then their rights should be restored in FULL, regardless of what percentage of them are likely to reoffend.
That second offense should have its own separate sentence.. not a sentence that includes a non-violent gun possession charge based on the single fact that the person was in possession of a firearm, knife, or other weapon. What they did, how they did it, or how often they did it is a complete NON ISSUE here.

A person who commits a DUI, or is found in possession of narcotics, CAN get clean and sober. They CAN change. They should not be disallowed from protecting themselves with the use of a handgun or other weapon, just because certain people's pansy asses are scared shitless that some ex crackhead convicted of drug trafficking has a gun. If the law is not of a concern to a criminal, or is less of a concern than their personal safety against the crack DEALER/ Drug Ring who they testified against- they will get that gun anyways. And so they should. Legally.

Its their fucking inalienable RIGHT.

 

[The Rabbi]

Merely repeating the same thing isn't arguing. And that isnt what a parole board does.
And people lose "inalienable rights" all the time for things, and the Founders didn't seem to have a problem with that.
It is only the loony communo-Libertarians that insist that people are either sinners or saints.

 

[Contumacious]

Its their fucking inalienable RIGHT.

You cuss like a sailor, Is that protected speech?

Just kidding you , that was a great post. I concur 1000%.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

That should make who is thinking clearly and who is the nutjob pretty clear right there.

 

[JD_2B]

Merely repeating the same thing isn't arguing. And that isnt what a parole board does.

Hey don't get mad at me. I don't even agree with parole! The parole board decides that they are "good to go" based on good behavior, and their entire mindset at the parole board hearings. Duh.

And people lose "inalienable rights" all the time for things,

Which is total bullshit..

and the Founders didn't seem to have a problem with that.

Bullshit.. again. The founding fathers did not particularly care for the press, even, and hated it when people abused their freedoms, but never advocated for people to lose their rights as a result. EVER.

It is only the loony communo-Libertarians that insist that people are either sinners or saints.

Libertarians are definitely not the ones labeling people here.. You are the one saying that only certain people should have guns, not me.

We just want them to have their freedoms. Its not about "sinner or saint"- its about "free and not free"..

 

[KittenKoder]

The 2nd Amendment never gave Citizens the right to independently carry and historical evidence aside, this is most obvious how the phrase "...under a well regulated militia..." is re-shaped, caked, and baked everytime the issue comes up.

Geez are you ignorant. Just every post you manage to prove it.

Why don't you save some time and just put "I don't like CurveLight" in your sig? It's better than quoting me in every thread just to show your affinity for returning to the first grade.

Let's do something crazy and look at the Second.....

"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."

Explain how a bunch of individuals who never meet fall under the category of a well regulat
ed militia.

Um ... huh?

 

[The Rabbi]

And people lose "inalienable rights" all the time for things,

Which is total bullshit..

and the Founders didn't seem to have a problem with that.

Bullshit.. again. The founding fathers did not particularly care for the press, even, and hated it when people abused their freedoms, but never advocated for people to lose their rights as a result. EVER.

It is only the loony communo-Libertarians that insist that people are either sinners or saints.

Libertarians are definitely not the ones labeling people here.. You are the one saying that only certain people should have guns, not me.

We just want them to have their freedoms. Its not about "sinner or saint"- its about "free and not free"..[/QUOTE]

No, it is not total bullshit. Rights cannot be extended to certain people. The Founders themselves had no problem prohibitng women from voting, for example. Or people with no money.
Yes, I am saying that only certain people ought to have guns, and others definitely should not. I don't have a problem with that. Same as I don't have a problem saying some people should not go to bars, or work with children, or with animals or many other things that their own history suggests will turn out badly.

 

[Charles Stucker]

"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."

Explain how a bunch of individuals who never meet fall under the category of a well regulat
ed militia.

Can you parse a sentence?
The first part A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
is explaining why you need the second part
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Also the Militia was a gathering of willing able bodied men in times of need. They didn't typically drill together until mustered. The term well regulated is a reference to the need to know how to use a weapon. Loading was a complex process and when done incorrectly resulted in a fouled weapon or injuries, coupled with the tactic of volley fire, which could only be done at the rate of the slowest loader, this made prior familiarity with a gun vital to the effectiveness of any militia.

Having shown how the Militia clause works do you now need to have the People clause also explained?

 

[CurveLight]

"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."

Explain how a bunch of individuals who never meet fall under the category of a well regulat
ed militia.

Can you parse a sentence?
The first part A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
is explaining why you need the second part
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Also the Militia was a gathering of willing able bodied men in times of need. They didn't typically drill together until mustered. The term well regulated is a reference to the need to know how to use a weapon. Loading was a complex process and when done incorrectly resulted in a fouled weapon or injuries, coupled with the tactic of volley fire, which could only be done at the rate of the slowest loader, this made prior familiarity with a gun vital to the effectiveness of any militia.

Having shown how the Militia clause works do you now need to have the People clause also explained?

So your interpretation of the phrase could be stated as "people who know how to use a gun." is this accurate?

 

[Charles Stucker]

So your interpretation of the phrase could be stated as "people who know how to use a gun." is this accurate?

So you failed reading comprehension is school, I'll note that for the future.

 

[CurveLight]

So your interpretation of the phrase could be stated as "people who know how to use a gun." is this accurate?

So you failed reading comprehension is school, I'll note that for the future.

What does my being the world's biggest stupid moronic fucking asshole have to do with you explaining what they meant by well regulated is:




"The term well regulated is a reference to the need to know how to use a weapon. Loading was a complex process and when done incorrectly resulted in a fouled weapon or injuries, coupled with the tactic of volley fire, which could only be done at the rate of the slowest loader, this made prior familiarity with a gun vital to the effectiveness of any militia."

 

[The Rabbi]

So your interpretation of the phrase could be stated as "people who know how to use a gun." is this accurate?

So you failed reading comprehension is school, I'll note that for the future.

What does my being the world's biggest stupid moronic fucking asshole have to do with you explaining what they meant by well regulated is:

There ya go! I knew we could agree on something!
But one small quibble: you aren't the biggest stupid moronic fucking asshole in the world. But you are among the top three.
Don't give yourself too much credit.

 

[Charles Stucker]

What does my being the world's biggest stupid moronic fucking asshole have to do with you explaining

Oh, my bad, I thought you were trying to shift it more onto themilitia issue rather than the people issue.
The 2nd gives the people a right to own weapons.
It does so because the country had recently finished a war with the help of militia; help which was only possible because individual people owned their own weapons.
Most of the people in the militia had little military experience.
The people owned their guns before joining the militia.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Whose going to fuck with you? Well, moron, maybe the guy with the scoped deer rifle 200 yards away.

Yep, that happens all the time.

Isn't the guy with the scoped deer rifle concerned about the dude in the M1A1 tank hiding behind the Barnes & Noble?

Go back and try again.

I'm still trying to figure out why he needs a scope at 200 yards

 

[Tech_Esq]

The 2nd Amendment never gave Citizens the right to independently carry and historical evidence aside, this is most obvious how the phrase "...under a well regulated militia..." is re-shaped, caked, and baked everytime the issue comes up.

Geez are you ignorant. Just every post you manage to prove it.

Why don't you save some time and just put "I don't like CurveLight" in your sig? It's better than quoting me in every thread just to show your affinity for returning to the first grade.

Let's do something crazy and look at the Second.....

"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."

Explain how a bunch of individuals who never meet fall under the category of a well regulat
ed militia.

Explain how you ignore the entire context of the Bill of Rights and the operative phrase of the second amendment to focus all weight upon the prefatory clause of the second amendment. Additionally, you ignore all the history surrounding the creation of the second amendment and any discovery about why an armed citizenry might or might not have been desired by the people who wrote.

If you had bothered to conduct such an inquiry, you might better understand the concepts discussed in the second amendment, why they are important and what they bring to our system of checks and balances.

 

[Diuretic]

Was there a standing army in the US at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights? That may throw a bit of light on it. Also I would assume that the English tradition which existed for several hundred years may have had an influence on those charged with drafting the Bill of Rights. England didn't have a standing army until Cromwell, it had regional militia and for that to be effective men had to possess arms.

Anyway it's interesting but moot given the interpretations by the US Supreme Court.

 

[The Rabbi]

Whose going to fuck with you? Well, moron, maybe the guy with the scoped deer rifle 200 yards away.

Yep, that happens all the time.

Isn't the guy with the scoped deer rifle concerned about the dude in the M1A1 tank hiding behind the Barnes & Noble?

Go back and try again.

I'm still trying to figure out why he needs a scope at 200 yards

Why wouldn't he?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Was there a standing army in the US at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights? That may throw a bit of light on it. Also I would assume that the English tradition which existed for several hundred years may have had an influence on those charged with drafting the Bill of Rights. England didn't have a standing army until Cromwell, it had regional militia and for that to be effective men had to possess arms.

Anyway it's interesting but moot given the interpretations by the US Supreme Court.

Yes, there was a standing army at the time of the drafting. I'll pardon you for not knowing the Army's year of birth was 1775. The Army has been in continuous existence since then. The size of the army was not large, but the standing army was never large until after WW II.

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by the second part, but let's take a look at what Scalia says in relevant part:

The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

D.C. v. Heller

 

[Tech_Esq]

Yep, that happens all the time.

Isn't the guy with the scoped deer rifle concerned about the dude in the M1A1 tank hiding behind the Barnes & Noble?

Go back and try again.

I'm still trying to figure out why he needs a scope at 200 yards

Why wouldn't he?

Well, if you are any kind of a shot, you should be able to make that with iron sights. You shouldn't need a scope for another 100 yards at least. Now maybe if you were trying to shoot the eyeballs out of someone at 200 yards, I could see using a scope. But, just killing them? Please.