Teaching biblical truth could get your kids taken away

[JoeB131]

You're stuck on militia and time and time again the courts rule against that argument.

For most of history, the courts have found the militia clause allowed government to regulate gun ownership. ONly the awful Heller and McDonald decisions have found otherwise, and the courts have walked even though back a bit.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

For most of history, the courts have found the militia clause allowed government to regulate gun ownership.

To whatever extent that may be true, the courts were wrong. The Second Amendment is explicit on the point of who the right belongs to. It doesn't belong to the militia; it belongs to the people. And “…shall not be infringed” means that government is absolutely forbidden from even touching the edge of this right.

 

[JoeB131]

To whatever extent that may be true, the courts were wrong. The Second Amendment is explicit on the point of who the right belongs to. It doesn't belong to the militia; it belongs to the people. And “…shall not be infringed” means that government is absolutely forbidden from even touching the edge of this right.

But does it belong to them as a collective right or an individual right? Clearly, quaifiying it as a "Well-Regulated Militia" determines it is a collective right. Nobody wanted Joker Holmes showing up with a machine gun.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Second Amendment is explicit on the point of who the right belongs to. It doesn't belong to the militia; it belongs to the people.

But does it belong to them as a collective right or an individual right?

What does “the people” mean everywhere that it appears in the Bill of Rights?

Where the First Amendment addresses “ the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, are these collective rights, or are they rights that belong to every individual? What about “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”? Or the unnamed rights “…retained by the people …” mentioned in the Ninth Amendment? And why does the Tenth Amendment distinguish powers belonging to the people from those belonging to the states or to the federal government?

Nowhere in the Constitution is the term “the people” used to describe a collective right or power. The Second Amendment is no exception.

 

[JoeB131]

What does “the people” mean everywhere that it appears in the Bill of Rights?

Where the First Amendment addresses “ the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

well, that would be a good example of a collective right. They don't redress every nutbag who has a grievance. they would be redressing a collective grievance.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Where the First Amendment addresses “ the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

well, that would be a good example of a collective right. They don't redress every nutbag who has a grievance. they would be redressing a collective grievance.

Thanks for proving my point.

So, are you saying that as an individual, I do not have the right, as described in the First Amendment, to write a letter to my Congressman to address any grievances I may have with government—that somehow, this right exists only in a collective form?

 

[JoeB131]

So, are you saying that as an individual, I do not have the right, as described in the First Amendment, to write a letter to my Congressman to address any grievances I may have with government—that somehow, this right exists only in a collective form?

No. You can write all day.. it's just not that they are going to take your crank letter very seriously.

Just like not everyone should have a gun if they aren't in a militia.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So, are you saying that as an individual, I do not have the right, as described in the First Amendment, to write a letter to my Congressman to address any grievances I may have with government—that somehow, this right exists only in a collective form?

No. You can write all day.. it's just not that they are going to take your crank letter very seriously.

Just like not everyone should have a gun if they aren't in a militia.

Whether a Congressman responds in a satisfactory manner to a letter from a constituent is beside the point. The point is that as one of “the people”, I have a right to write that letter and send it to my Congressman. Just as I have a right, as one of “the people”, to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the Constitution is the term “the people” used to describe a right or a power that is collective in nature.

 

[JoeB131]

Whether a Congressman responds in a satisfactory manner to a letter from a constituent is beside the point. The point is that as one of “the people”, I have a right to write that letter and send it to my Congressman. Just as I have a right, as one of “the people”, to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the Constitution is the term “the people” used to describe a right or a power that is collective in nature.

Well, that's an interesting opinion, but that's all it is.

here's where I got to break the bad news to you. There are no "rights". There are privileges the rest of society let's you have. Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942"

For most of our history, the courts have found that the Second Amendment applied to militias, not gun ownership. Only in 2008 did you have Scalia suddenly discover the crazy talk of the National Rampage Association was right.

 

[martybegan]

You said "no crime". Again, impossible bar, wanker.

Can you name a country with shitloads of guns and LITTLE crime.. or even less crime than a gun-controlling democracy... no, no, you can't.

Because everyone else realized what a terrible thing it is letting people who have no business owning guns have them.

He doesn't, or is incapable of, grasping, shall not be infringed

sure...it comes after WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

These guys are not a WELL REGULATED MILITIA

Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.

 

[JoeB131]

Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.

No they didn't. Not that anyone wants guns in churches or pre-schools, but Cho attacked a campus that had it's own armed police force.

 

[Slyhunter]

Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.

No they didn't. Not that anyone wants guns in churches or pre-schools, but Cho attacked a campus that had it's own armed police force.

The students and teachers were unarmed. Had they been armed they could've defended themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

The students and teachers were unarmed. Had they been armed they could've defended themselves.

Or they could have panicked and randomly shot someone in the hall...

Look, guy, the Good Guy with a gun never shows up. If a mass shooter is stopped, he is either stopped by the cops or he stops himself.

 

[martybegan]

Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.

No they didn't. Not that anyone wants guns in churches or pre-schools, but Cho attacked a campus that had it's own armed police force.

Gun free meaning non-government actors were prevented from bringing their own firearms to the location.

 

[martybegan]

The students and teachers were unarmed. Had they been armed they could've defended themselves.

Or they could have panicked and randomly shot someone in the hall...

Look, guy, the Good Guy with a gun never shows up. If a mass shooter is stopped, he is either stopped by the cops or he stops himself.

hard for him to show up when in most places that shootings occurred he/she isn't allowed to carry.

 

[Dragonlady]

You said "no crime". Again, impossible bar, wanker.

Can you name a country with shitloads of guns and LITTLE crime.. or even less crime than a gun-controlling democracy... no, no, you can't.

Because everyone else realized what a terrible thing it is letting people who have no business owning guns have them.

He doesn't, or is incapable of, grasping, shall not be infringed

sure...it comes after WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

These guys are not a WELL REGULATED MILITIA

Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.

The Colorado shooter did not attack in a gun free zone. There were people with guns in the theatre who did not use them because they couldn't see what was going on and it was too chaotic.

 

[martybegan]

You said "no crime". Again, impossible bar, wanker.

Can you name a country with shitloads of guns and LITTLE crime.. or even less crime than a gun-controlling democracy... no, no, you can't.

Because everyone else realized what a terrible thing it is letting people who have no business owning guns have them.

He doesn't, or is incapable of, grasping, shall not be infringed

sure...it comes after WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

These guys are not a WELL REGULATED MILITIA

Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.

The Colorado shooter did not attack in a gun free zone. There were people with guns in the theatre who did not use them because they couldn't see what was going on and it was too chaotic.

oh Rily?

John Lott's Website: No guns policy at Cinemark Theaters?

 

[Dragonlady]

You said "no crime". Again, impossible bar, wanker.

Can you name a country with shitloads of guns and LITTLE crime.. or even less crime than a gun-controlling democracy... no, no, you can't.

Because everyone else realized what a terrible thing it is letting people who have no business owning guns have them.

He doesn't, or is incapable of, grasping, shall not be infringed

sure...it comes after WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

These guys are not a WELL REGULATED MILITIA

Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.

The Colorado shooter did not attack in a gun free zone. There were people with guns in the theatre who did not use them because they couldn't see what was going on and it was too chaotic.

oh Rily?

John Lott's Website: No guns policy at Cinemark Theaters?

There were survivors interviewed who said they had their guns with them and couldn't see what was going on.

I doubt the theatre frisks those who enter.

 

[martybegan]

You said "no crime". Again, impossible bar, wanker.

Can you name a country with shitloads of guns and LITTLE crime.. or even less crime than a gun-controlling democracy... no, no, you can't.

Because everyone else realized what a terrible thing it is letting people who have no business owning guns have them.

He doesn't, or is incapable of, grasping, shall not be infringed

sure...it comes after WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

These guys are not a WELL REGULATED MILITIA

Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.

The Colorado shooter did not attack in a gun free zone. There were people with guns in the theatre who did not use them because they couldn't see what was going on and it was too chaotic.

oh Rily?

John Lott's Website: No guns policy at Cinemark Theaters?

There were survivors interviewed who said they had their guns with them and couldn't see what was going on.

I doubt the theatre frisks those who enter.

Links?

 

[Dragonlady]

Can you name a country with shitloads of guns and LITTLE crime.. or even less crime than a gun-controlling democracy... no, no, you can't.

Because everyone else realized what a terrible thing it is letting people who have no business owning guns have them.

sure...it comes after WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

These guys are not a WELL REGULATED MILITIA

Each one of them attacked a gun free zone. So figure that one out.

The Colorado shooter did not attack in a gun free zone. There were people with guns in the theatre who did not use them because they couldn't see what was going on and it was too chaotic.

oh Rily?

John Lott's Website: No guns policy at Cinemark Theaters?

There were survivors interviewed who said they had their guns with them and couldn't see what was going on.

I doubt the theatre frisks those who enter.

Links?

It was four years ago. I don't remember whether this was a TV interview or a print report. I do remember that the the guy was either an off-duty cop or military. He said that the tear gas made it impossible to see, and it all happened too quickly to get a sense of what was going on.

There was a media barrage of reports and information in every newspaper and TV station. It's impossible to find much of it now without knowing exactly where to look.