Second amendment more important?

[M14 Shooter]

Are there really this many folks ignorant of Heller?

The text of Heller explains why Sallow is wrong.
That's why Sallow ignores Heller.

Case law.
As I pointed out.

Your interpretation is wrong. You know it. Thus, you lie.

 

[The T]

No matter how many times you post this lie, it is still a lie.

A "lie" would imply an "untruth".

There's the Amendment:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Clear text and in English.

Read Heller, you ignorant buffoon.

Link HERE

 

[candycorn]

The word "militia" is in the 2nd amendment. Somehow it has translated into anyone who wants to buy a gun can do so but only on the condition that they have enough money and never consider joining the required militia.

The text of the amendment doesn't protect the right of the state, or the right of the militia, but the right of the people.

If we banned automatic weapons--not mentioned in the constitution--more Americans would be alive today.

Really?
How many people have been killed in the last 10 years with legally-owned automatic weapons?

Don't know. Theres no need for any sane person to have them though. I do know that.

 

[Si modo]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

The founding fathers wrote why in numerous quotes. I would of thought you learned in middle school history that arms kept by the people stop the threat of government tyranny.

And..that's not supported by the Constitution.

It's only the intent of the 2nd, but don't let any facts get in the way.

Don't read Title 10, section 31 of the US Code.

And, don't read Heller.

I'm serious. Don't. I enjoy laughing at you.

 

[Full-Auto]

Anyone wonder just how many repeat offenders there are for crimes commited with weapons?
Has anyone wondered how many of those offenders were tried and released with a lesser crime, had the time reduced down to no more than a slap on the wrist.
We have laws in place that hits the perp hard with a harsh sentence with crimes using weapons. Only to be reduced or overturned by liberal courts.
If the courts would start enforcing these laws with the mandatory sentences it would keep the perps in prison for a long time and also, it would deter a lot of the criminals from using deadly weapons in crimes.
Not saying it would eliminate the crimes, but it would reduce them.
As for this nut in Aurora......there was nothing going to stop him, hell, he had the makings for bombs.

And apparently had been planning it for awhile. People are going to do what they will. How society reacts or more precisely, the Law...is the deterrent. Making an example of the person for the ACT is the issue. Banning intstruments does nothing. Very good point.

Something about spreading it around brother...................

 

[Si modo]

The word "militia" is in the 2nd amendment. Somehow it has translated into anyone who wants to buy a gun can do so but only on the condition that they have enough money and never consider joining the required militia.

The text of the amendment doesn't protect the right of the state, or the right of the militia, but the right of the people.

If we banned automatic weapons--not mentioned in the constitution--more Americans would be alive today.

Really?
How many people have been killed in the last 10 years with legally-owned automatic weapons?

Don't know. Theres no need for any sane person to have them though. I do know that.

Too bad for your ideas of what sane is; the law says otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The word "militia" is in the 2nd amendment. Somehow it has translated into anyone who wants to buy a gun can do so but only on the condition that they have enough money and never consider joining the required militia.

The text of the amendment doesn't protect the right of the state, or the right of the militia, but the right of the people.

If we banned automatic weapons--not mentioned in the constitution--more Americans would be alive today.

Really?
How many people have been killed in the last 10 years with legally-owned automatic weapons?

Don't know. Theres no need for any sane person to have them though. I do know that.

If you "don't know", where do you get the idea that "If we banned automatic weapons, more Americans would be alive today"?

1: You arent a competent judge of what others "need" while exercising their rights
2: The ability to exercise a right is not based on somone's subjective definition of a "need" to do so.

 

[The T]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

The founding fathers wrote why in numerous quotes. I would of thought you learned in middle school history that arms kept by the people stop the threat of government tyranny.

And..that's not supported by the Constitution.

Neither were the Federalist Papers...right?

"I'll take what is Publius for $1,000 Alex..."

s0n? You don't know what you think you do.

 

[Sallow]

You are free to say anything you want.

You are free to own a gun.

How you use them can have consequences.

So you are saying that restrictions are necessary? Or not?

Not.

You are FREE to say ANYTHING you want.

You are FREE to OWN a gun.

How you USE them can have consequences.

You should not be restricted in your speech or gun ownership. However, if you use them in an illegal manner, their are laws and consequences to how you used them. The restriction is in the USE, not the right.

There are markedly distinct difference between guns and words.

Guns can inflict great bodily harm or kill.

Words? Not so much.

 

[Sallow]

The founding fathers wrote why in numerous quotes. I would of thought you learned in middle school history that arms kept by the people stop the threat of government tyranny.

And..that's not supported by the Constitution.

Neither were the Federalist Papers...right?

"I'll take what is Publius for $1,000 Alex..."

s0n? You don't know what you think you do.

The Federalist papers..were a series of opinions meant to convince New Yorkers to sign on to the Constitution.

And..no..no laws are drawn from those opinions.

 

[Si modo]

So you are saying that restrictions are necessary? Or not?

Not.

You are FREE to say ANYTHING you want.

You are FREE to OWN a gun.

How you USE them can have consequences.

You should not be restricted in your speech or gun ownership. However, if you use them in an illegal manner, their are laws and consequences to how you used them. The restriction is in the USE, not the right.

There are markedly distinct difference between guns and words.

Guns can inflict great bodily harm or kill.

Words? Not so much.

So can words. "You are hereby sentenced to death. May God have mercy on your soul."

But, yeah, words aren't guns. Any other obvious things you want to point out?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you are saying that restrictions are necessary? Or not?

Not.

You are FREE to say ANYTHING you want.

You are FREE to OWN a gun.

How you USE them can have consequences.

You should not be restricted in your speech or gun ownership. However, if you use them in an illegal manner, their are laws and consequences to how you used them. The restriction is in the USE, not the right.

There are markedly distinct difference between guns and words.
Guns can inflict great bodily harm or kill.
Words? Not so much.

And yet, that's exactly why libel, slander and 'fire in a theater' are not protected by the 1st amendment - they cause harm or place people in immediate danger.

Explain to us how simple posession/ownership of a gun does either of those things.

 

[Si modo]

And..that's not supported by the Constitution.

Neither were the Federalist Papers...right?

"I'll take what is Publius for $1,000 Alex..."

s0n? You don't know what you think you do.

The Federalist papers..were a series of opinions meant to convince New Yorkers to sign on to the Constitution.

And..no..no laws are drawn from those opinions.

Do you even know what you are arguing any longer?

It's a serious question.

 

[Sallow]

The founding fathers wrote why in numerous quotes. I would of thought you learned in middle school history that arms kept by the people stop the threat of government tyranny.

And..that's not supported by the Constitution.

It's only the intent of the 2nd, but don't let any facts get in the way.

Don't read Title 10, section 31 of the US Code.

And, don't read Heller.

I'm serious. Don't. I enjoy laughing at you.

No it's not.

And the Constitution doesn't support open rebellion.

Read it once in a while.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

in·sur·rec·tion/ˌinsəˈrekSHən/
Noun:
A violent uprising against an authority or government: "opposition to the new regime led to armed insurrection".
Synonyms:
rebellion - revolt - uprising - insurgency - rising

 

[The T]

And..that's not supported by the Constitution.

Neither were the Federalist Papers...right?

"I'll take what is Publius for $1,000 Alex..."

s0n? You don't know what you think you do.

The Federalist papers..were a series of opinions meant to convince New Yorkers to sign on to the Constitution.

And..no..no laws are drawn from those opinions.

However they spoke about the Constitution in real terms versus the Articles of Confederation.

In any case? The SCOTUS used the Constitution for Heller. You read it yet? I took time out of my day and gave a link.

Case law my ass s0n. You have no clue.

 

[Sallow]

Neither were the Federalist Papers...right?

"I'll take what is Publius for $1,000 Alex..."

s0n? You don't know what you think you do.

The Federalist papers..were a series of opinions meant to convince New Yorkers to sign on to the Constitution.

And..no..no laws are drawn from those opinions.

Do you even know what you are arguing any longer?

It's a serious question.

If you find fault with something I've posted..I suggest you post a counter and support it.

Otherwise..we can get into a pissing contest.

I can do both.

 

[Sallow]

Neither were the Federalist Papers...right?

"I'll take what is Publius for $1,000 Alex..."

s0n? You don't know what you think you do.

The Federalist papers..were a series of opinions meant to convince New Yorkers to sign on to the Constitution.

And..no..no laws are drawn from those opinions.

However they spoke about the Constitution in real terms versus the Articles of Confederation.

In any case? The SCOTUS used the Constitution for Heller. You read it yet? I took time out of my day and gave a link.

Case law my ass s0n. You have no clue.

They "spoke" about many things.

Hamilton, for example, wrote extensively about the dangers of a standing professional army under federal control.

What's your take on that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Federalist papers..were a series of opinions meant to convince New Yorkers to sign on to the Constitution.

And..no..no laws are drawn from those opinions.

Do you even know what you are arguing any longer?

It's a serious question.

If you find fault with something I've posted..

OK...

1: Show that the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
2: Show how simple posession/ownership of a firearm harms anyone or places them in a condition of immediate danger.

 

[Si modo]

The Federalist papers..were a series of opinions meant to convince New Yorkers to sign on to the Constitution.

And..no..no laws are drawn from those opinions.

Do you even know what you are arguing any longer?

It's a serious question.

If you find fault with something I've posted..I suggest you post a counter and support it.

Otherwise..we can get into a pissing contest.

I can do both.

I've, and others have, already shown you what the 2nd amendment is, what militia is, and that individuals have a right to bear arms.

So, what are you arguing NOW?

Or, are you still arguing falsehoods?

Honestly, I can't tell anymore. So, if you care to articulate your point, perhaps that might move this along.

 

[BlindBoo]

The militias went home at certain time of the year as there were no standing army. This gave them the right to take their weapons home.

You mean besides the fact that it was their weapons in the first place, right?

I bet they fought over who got to take home the Howitzers.