Second amendment more important?

[M14 Shooter]

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.

True. True on both counts.
Common sense says otherwise.

Common sense is based on truth, which you have alsready excluded from your position.
Thus, your position cannot qualify as common sense,

 

[Paulie]

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?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

I think so. Infringing on absolute free speech would be the putting of limits on it. Like prohibiting libel or the incitement to riot etc.

Are you maintaining that you have the right to incite riot or to slander. Perhaps your version of free speech would allow you to lie in court?

It's like any other right. Yours ends where mine begins, and so on.

If you slander someone, you can potentially ruin their reputation which can lead to them not being able to get a decent job, a loan, etc. There ought to be some kind of regulation in that regard.

There are implied limits to rights. You have the right to own a gun, but you don't have the right to shoot me with it. Just because it's called a "right" doesn't mean it's an excuse to go out and shit all over anyone else.

 

[Liability]

That's it..in clear text.



Again..clear text.

Fail and fail.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is pretty plain, which makes your spin on it hard to explain.

And the fact that murders happen -- sometimes by use of guns -- does not mean that guns are the primary cause of murder. In many cases, if the same murderers had no gun at all, the deaths would still have taken place. FURTHERMORE, if some folks in the theater in Aurora OTHER than just a nutjob gunman had been armed, it is possible (maybe even probable) that the loss of life would not have been that large since somebody might have been able to shoot the Joker wannabe in between his eyes.

Some of those deaths are not murders at all..but suicides and accidents.

Which could have happened with rope and chair or trips and falls.

 

[The T]

Except there are other parts of the Constitution that support that fact that Framers never wanted a professional army under federal control.

Except thay they gave the federal government the power to do exactly that.

[Congress] Article 1, Section 8, [maintenance/pursestrings] and Gave the POTUS control of thier use under Article 2.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

That's it..in clear text.

Coward.
Show -how- the 'clear text' means what you say it means.

All firearm deaths
•Number of deaths: 31,347
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
FASTSTATS - Injuries

Again..clear text.

This does nothing to show how -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.
Try again.

Waiting...

 

[The T]

That's it..in clear text.

Coward.
Show -how- the 'clear text' means what you say it means.

Again..clear text.

This does nothing to show how -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.
Try again.

Waiting...

Don't hold yer breath 'bro. Sallow the pup is licking his wounds right about now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Coward.
Show -how- the 'clear text' means what you say it means.


This does nothing to show how -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.
Try again.

Waiting...

Don't hold yer breath 'bro. Sallow the pup is licking his wounds right about now.

That's what usually happens when she comes in here -- makes all kinds of claims she cannot support and then leaves.

 

[kwc57]

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 you won't mind if I start spreading the word that you are a rapist and pedophile? That wouldn't cause you any harm?

 

[Sallow]

Waiting...

Don't hold yer breath 'bro. Sallow the pup is licking his wounds right about now.

That's what usually happens when she comes in here -- makes all kinds of claims she cannot support and then leaves.

Listen girlie..

I ain't a "she".

Just because you have a vagina..doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

[onecut39]

Don't forget the "well regulated" part.

Yes the militia is indeed well regulated to prevent its use in a tyrannical fashion or to promote un-Constitutional ideas by force.

Our "militia" is now known as the National Guard.

 

[Sallow]

That's it..in clear text.

Coward.
Show -how- the 'clear text' means what you say it means.

Again..clear text.

This does nothing to show how -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.
Try again.

Waiting...

Waiting for what?

There's a link in the post.

Real people died.

 

[onecut39]

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?

And they also codified the Declaration with ratification of the Constitution and the protection of Life, Liberty, Persuit of happiness [property] that the Constitution guarantees each individual...

And I'll bet you're in denial about that as well, aren't you?

Shame through Heller the SCOTUS also codified the Second Amendment isn't it?

They were after all only talking about it...

ROFLMAO!!!

Show me where he constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

 

[Sallow]

Don't forget the "well regulated" part.

Yes the militia is indeed well regulated to prevent its use in a tyrannical fashion or to promote un-Constitutional ideas by force.

Our "militia" is now known as the National Guard.

There really isn't a militia. The whole concept set forth in the Constitution is long dead and buried. We don't have a military comprised of citizen soldiers..rather..one comprised of professional people under federal control. This use to require a two year vote for funding..but now that is basically just formality. Which brings us to what the second amendment "means". And it really has little to do with gun ownership. That's been decided by case law..which keeps changing in a way that bodes badly for public safety. The very mention of any common sense contraints..such as prohibiting crazy people from owning guns, terrorists buying guns, a ban on high capacity magazines, a ban on assault rifles; sends the right wing into a complete frenzy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Coward.
Show -how- the 'clear text' means what you say it means.


This does nothing to show how -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.
Try again.

Waiting...

Waiting for what?

For you to sack up and defnd your claims.

-- Show how the 'clear text' of the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
-- Show how your citation of numbers of people killed supports the idea that -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.

 

[Sallow]

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?

And they also codified the Declaration with ratification of the Constitution and the protection of Life, Liberty, Persuit of happiness [property] that the Constitution guarantees each individual...

And I'll bet you're in denial about that as well, aren't you?

Shame through Heller the SCOTUS also codified the Second Amendment isn't it?

They were after all only talking about it...

First you elude that I have no "clue" about the federalist papers..and then when you discover that I do have a "clue" about the papers (Meaning I've read them) you start kitchen sinking..as in throwing in everything including the kitchen sink.

You've gone from the Constitution, Case Law, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers and now the Declaration.

What other things do you want to include here Tommy? The Turner Diaries?

 

[The T]

Waiting...

Waiting for what?

For you to sack up and defnd your claims.

-- Show how the 'clear text' of the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
-- Show how your citation of numbers of people killed supports the idea that -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.

And as a matter of course? He will forget to factor in the responsibility that the majority of gun owners practice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes the militia is indeed well regulated to prevent its use in a tyrannical fashion or to promote un-Constitutional ideas by force.

Our "militia" is now known as the National Guard.

There really isn't a militia.

State and federal laws say otherwise.

We don't have a military comprised of citizen soldiers..rather..one comprised of professional people under federal control.

As was the intent of the people that wrote the constitution when they gave the federal government the power to create and control such a force.

Which brings us to what the second amendment "means". And it really has little to do with gun ownership.

This is still a lie.

 

[Sallow]

Waiting...

Waiting for what?

For you to sack up and defnd your claims.

-- Show how the 'clear text' of the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
-- Show how your citation of numbers of people killed supports the idea that -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.

First you cut my post in half.

And second you essentially ignore the links and data I provide.

If you aren't going to consider what I post..then really..there's no point in going on here.

Good day.

 

[The T]

Coward.
Show -how- the 'clear text' means what you say it means.


This does nothing to show how -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.
Try again.

Waiting...

Waiting for what?

There's a link in the post.

Real people died.

And died WHY? Lack of responsibility. Something YOU are sorely lacking and have FAILED to factor in to the discussion dogbreath.

 

[Sallow]

Waiting for what?

For you to sack up and defnd your claims.

-- Show how the 'clear text' of the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
-- Show how your citation of numbers of people killed supports the idea that -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.

And as a matter of course? He will forget to factor in the responsibility that the majority of gun owners practice.

Looks pretty responsible..you bet..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDBPvuPkjD4]Bulletproof Vest Test Goes Wrong - YouTube[/ame]