Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun

[Contumacious]

Why don't you change your handle to "slave101"?


.

the willfully ignorant are hilarious ..

Those who volunteer to be slaves , those who volunteer to be tyrannize are a phenomenon.

.

what's it like to be enslaved and tyrannize by paranoia and ignorance.?

paranoia, hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

so its not true that fedgov has a massive domestic army?

So its not true that the executive branch attempted to abolish SCOTUS, circa 1935?

So its not true that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground?

thanks again for proving me correct.
that attempt failed, so other than historical trivia it's meaningless.
if by army you mean national guard then yes, it does.
like all paranoids you believe it's out to get you.

We are going to be armed and ready to defend our lives even if you motherfuckers nominate another gun grabbing fascist to SCOTUS We are not gong to let your subservient naivete persuade us. .

 

[daws101]

the willfully ignorant are hilarious ..

Those who volunteer to be slaves , those who volunteer to be tyrannize are a phenomenon.

.

what's it like to be enslaved and tyrannize by paranoia and ignorance.?

paranoia, hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

so its not true that fedgov has a massive domestic army?

So its not true that the executive branch attempted to abolish SCOTUS, circa 1935?

So its not true that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground?

thanks again for proving me correct.
that attempt failed, so other than historical trivia it's meaningless.
if by army you mean national guard then yes, it does.
like all paranoids you believe it's out to get you.

We are going to be armed and ready to defend our lives even if you motherfuckers nominate another gun grabbing fascist to SCOTUS We are not gong to let your subservient naivete persuade us. .

if that's not a raving paranoid delusional proclamation then nothing is.
who is we?
Nosism, from the Latin nos, "we", is the practice of using the pronoun "we" to refer to oneself when expressing a personal opinion.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.

The 2nd amendment says in modern language, that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction. Other passages and amendments in the Constitution make exceptions ("except by due process of law" or "reasonable searches and seizures" etc.), but the Framers were careful to make sure the 2nd did not. It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.

But here we have a college professor in a position to influence young minds, announcing that violent people shouldn't own gun, because of the chance that they might be violent.

Yes, it's true that someone who has been violent in the past might do it again. But it's far more often true that someone who has been violent, does it only once in a situation of extreme emotional stress, and never does it again. But there are (unconstitutional) laws in the country, saying that a person who was recklessly violent once, loses his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.

If the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights wanted it that way, why did they write a flat ban on such laws, into the 2nd amendment?

Could it be that they thought that government having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms, would do the nation far more harm in the long run, than letting government impose such restrictions on "some groups" of people?

Did they look over the long history of governments throughout the ages, and find that governments who had "a little" influence on the question of who can keep and bear arms, eventually started abusing that power, imposing restrictions on more and more of their populaces, and eventually leave them helpless to resist the rest of their rights being taken away?

The answer lies in what they wrote for our government. They felt it was more important for govt to be completely banned from restricting people's right to own and carry weapons, than for govt to have even the power to take that right away from "some groups" of people.

The Framers didn't leave us long treatises explaining what studies they did (although they did study many past government extensively) and why they came to the conclusions they did.

But they did leave us the conclusion. And that was to flatly ban govt from having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms.

If that college professor wants to keep professing the facts, maybe HE should study up, even half as much as the Framers did, and find the facts. Before he starts telling trusting young souls what they are.

 

[daws101]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.

The 2nd amendment says in modern language, that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction. Other passages and amendments in the Constitution make exceptions ("except by due process of law" or "reasonable searches and seizures" etc.), but the Framers were careful to make sure the 2nd did not. It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.

But here we have a college professor in a position to influence young minds, announcing that violent people shouldn't own gun, because of the chance that they might be violent.

Yes, it's true that someone who has been violent in the past might do it again. But it's far more often true that someone who has been violent, does it only once in a situation of extreme emotional stress, and never does it again. But there are (unconstitutional) laws in the country, saying that a person who was recklessly violent once, loses his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.

If the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights wanted it that way, why did they write a flat ban on such laws, into the 2nd amendment?

Could it be that they thought that government having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms, would do the nation far more harm in the long run, than letting government impose such restrictions on "some groups" of people?

Did they look over the long history of governments throughout the ages, and find that governments who had "a little" influence on the question of who can keep and bear arms, eventually started abusing that power, imposing restrictions on more and more of their populaces, and eventually leave them helpless to resist the rest of their rights being taken away?

The answer lies in what they wrote for our government. They felt it was more important for govt to be completely banned from restricting people's right to own and carry weapons, than for govt to have even the power to take that right away from "some groups" of people.

The Framers didn't leave us long treatises explaining what studies they did (although they did study many past government extensively) and why they came to the conclusions they did.

But they did leave us the conclusion. And that was to flatly ban govt from having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms.

If that college professor wants to keep professing the facts, maybe HE should study up, even half as much as the Framers did, and find the facts. Before he starts telling trusting young souls what they are.

Another wall of text has risen from the grave!

 

[Rustic]

Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.

The 2nd amendment says in modern language, that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction. Other passages and amendments in the Constitution make exceptions ("except by due process of law" or "reasonable searches and seizures" etc.), but the Framers were careful to make sure the 2nd did not. It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.

But here we have a college professor in a position to influence young minds, announcing that violent people shouldn't own gun, because of the chance that they might be violent.

Yes, it's true that someone who has been violent in the past might do it again. But it's far more often true that someone who has been violent, does it only once in a situation of extreme emotional stress, and never does it again. But there are (unconstitutional) laws in the country, saying that a person who was recklessly violent once, loses his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.

If the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights wanted it that way, why did they write a flat ban on such laws, into the 2nd amendment?

Could it be that they thought that government having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms, would do the nation far more harm in the long run, than letting government impose such restrictions on "some groups" of people?

Did they look over the long history of governments throughout the ages, and find that governments who had "a little" influence on the question of who can keep and bear arms, eventually started abusing that power, imposing restrictions on more and more of their populaces, and eventually leave them helpless to resist the rest of their rights being taken away?

The answer lies in what they wrote for our government. They felt it was more important for govt to be completely banned from restricting people's right to own and carry weapons, than for govt to have even the power to take that right away from "some groups" of people.

The Framers didn't leave us long treatises explaining what studies they did (although they did study many past government extensively) and why they came to the conclusions they did.

But they did leave us the conclusion. And that was to flatly ban govt from having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms.

If that college professor wants to keep professing the facts, maybe HE should study up, even half as much as the Framers did, and find the facts. Before he starts telling trusting young souls what they are.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[daws101]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[Rustic]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[daws101]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[Rustic]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[daws101]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Yawn. ...

 

[Little-Acorn]

Funny......if you actually read the Constitution , the Founding Fathers debates and Cruikshank vs United States , 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159 the federal government has NO authority to THINK about regulating firearms , when , oh, when will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nobody bought the shit you've been spewing even back then.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names, insult you, and hope I can fool someone into believing me anyway.

 

[daws101]

Funny......if you actually read the Constitution , the Founding Fathers debates and Cruikshank vs United States , 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159 the federal government has NO authority to THINK about regulating firearms , when , oh, when will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

Nobody bought the shit you've been spewing even back then.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names, insult you, and hope I can fool someone into believing me anyway.

Another recycled meaningless pos

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun"

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26


We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Scalia was a liberal, as are Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito – who knew?

 

[P@triot]

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

Uh....no it doesn't. The amendment clearly states:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say the right of the militia. Sorry.

 

[Auld Phart]

Because the amendment states the militia needs to be well regulated, not the people.

Uh....no it doesn't. The amendment clearly states:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say the right of the militia. Sorry.

You seem to have misread my post.