The 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit regulation...

[martybegan]

Regulated does not mean "pass laws that on the books allow gun ownership, but in reality make it so impossible no one really tries"

That's what NYC has done with handguns, and why we don't trust assholes like you when all you say you want is "regulation"

NYC has decided what gun regulations work best in their unique environment

It seems to be working

They have had the same law on the books since the 60's.

It didn't work during the 70's 80's and early 90's that's for sure. Correlation is not causation, and during that period you didn't even haven correlation.

And if NYC can, in your opinion, ignore the 2nd amendment by asking for that waiting period and asking for those fees, why can't Alabama put a 1 week wait on abortions and a $100 fee for one?

Let NYC decide how much gun regulation is best for their city

The gun rights of someone in Wyoming whose closest neighbor is a mile away does not need to apply to NYC who has a population bigger than the State of Wyoming in one square mile

New York's gun laws are perfectly Constitutional; laws seeking to ban abortion are not.

And a unicorn just flew past your window, farting rainbow glitter.

you forgot the cotton candy queefing pixie riding on it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

NYC has decided what gun regulations work best in their unique environment

It seems to be working

They have had the same law on the books since the 60's.

It didn't work during the 70's 80's and early 90's that's for sure. Correlation is not causation, and during that period you didn't even haven correlation.

And if NYC can, in your opinion, ignore the 2nd amendment by asking for that waiting period and asking for those fees, why can't Alabama put a 1 week wait on abortions and a $100 fee for one?

Let NYC decide how much gun regulation is best for their city

The gun rights of someone in Wyoming whose closest neighbor is a mile away does not need to apply to NYC who has a population bigger than the State of Wyoming in one square mile

Let Alabama decide how much abortion regulation is best for their State, right?

Again, why can NYC decide to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $600 in fees for a handgun?

Answer the question.

And your wyoming quip would make more sense if long bolt action rifles were the target of this law, but they are not, and they are actually easier to get, but far more dangerous to a person's neighbors.

Why?

Because the overwhelming number of homicides in this country comes from handguns. Handguns and dense populations do not mix.

Got any data to back that up?

So what is a person in a dense population supposed to defend themselves with?

They are supposed to convert their homes into windowless bunkers and huddle inside, afraid to leave and ordering everything online for the postman to shove through a special armored mail slot. S'matter with you, you don't know that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

NYC has decided what gun regulations work best in their unique environment

It seems to be working

They have had the same law on the books since the 60's.

It didn't work during the 70's 80's and early 90's that's for sure. Correlation is not causation, and during that period you didn't even haven correlation.

And if NYC can, in your opinion, ignore the 2nd amendment by asking for that waiting period and asking for those fees, why can't Alabama put a 1 week wait on abortions and a $100 fee for one?

Let NYC decide how much gun regulation is best for their city

The gun rights of someone in Wyoming whose closest neighbor is a mile away does not need to apply to NYC who has a population bigger than the State of Wyoming in one square mile

New York's gun laws are perfectly Constitutional; laws seeking to ban abortion are not.

And a unicorn just flew past your window, farting rainbow glitter.

you forgot the cotton candy queefing pixie riding on it.

It probably went by so fast, he didn't notice.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

NYC has decided what gun regulations work best in their unique environment

It seems to be working

They have had the same law on the books since the 60's.

It didn't work during the 70's 80's and early 90's that's for sure. Correlation is not causation, and during that period you didn't even haven correlation.

And if NYC can, in your opinion, ignore the 2nd amendment by asking for that waiting period and asking for those fees, why can't Alabama put a 1 week wait on abortions and a $100 fee for one?

Let NYC decide how much gun regulation is best for their city

The gun rights of someone in Wyoming whose closest neighbor is a mile away does not need to apply to NYC who has a population bigger than the State of Wyoming in one square mile

New York's gun laws are perfectly Constitutional; laws seeking to ban abortion are not.

And a unicorn just flew past your window, farting rainbow glitter.

you forgot the cotton candy queefing pixie riding on it.

 

[martybegan]

They have had the same law on the books since the 60's.

It didn't work during the 70's 80's and early 90's that's for sure. Correlation is not causation, and during that period you didn't even haven correlation.

And if NYC can, in your opinion, ignore the 2nd amendment by asking for that waiting period and asking for those fees, why can't Alabama put a 1 week wait on abortions and a $100 fee for one?

Let NYC decide how much gun regulation is best for their city

The gun rights of someone in Wyoming whose closest neighbor is a mile away does not need to apply to NYC who has a population bigger than the State of Wyoming in one square mile

Let Alabama decide how much abortion regulation is best for their State, right?

Again, why can NYC decide to make me wait 3-6 months and pay $600 in fees for a handgun?

Answer the question.

And your wyoming quip would make more sense if long bolt action rifles were the target of this law, but they are not, and they are actually easier to get, but far more dangerous to a person's neighbors.

Why?

Because the overwhelming number of homicides in this country comes from handguns. Handguns and dense populations do not mix.

Got any data to back that up?

So what is a person in a dense population supposed to defend themselves with?

They are supposed to convert their homes into windowless bunkers and huddle inside, afraid to leave and ordering everything online for the postman to shove through a special armored mail slot. S'matter with you, you don't know that?

The ironic thing is a handgun with a proper load is less likely to punch its way through walls and such, unlike a bolt action .30-06 which is actually easier to get than a handgun.

 

[Contumacious]

In fact it mandates it.
In the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Heller case written by Justice Scalia the point is made that formal membership in the state militia is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms ...because in the wording of the time "all male adults" are considered to be members of the "citizen militia " to be called upon in times of national defense. Hence, all adult citizens (women too) are members of the general citizens militia and entitled to keep and bear arms.

The plain reading of the Second Amendment " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed " obviously requires a well regulated militia

Well, the general citizens militia is not "well regulated", it's hardly regulated at all!
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type. It's important to note that in the Heller decision Scalia made the expressed point that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.

Our leaders have failed us and allowed the NRA to make a perversion of the 2nd Amendment and our daily lives a game of Russian roulette - who will be next to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Of course to the fascists/socialists/government supremacists that fact that the Constitution grants NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY it means that regulatory was somehow granted.. No regulatory authority was granted either as regulation was understood in 1787 or as it is understood nowadays.

The Constitution granted no regulatory authority to Congress; the 2A emphasizes that the right shall not be infringed and the 9A clearly states that if no authority is granted then the right was one RETAINED by the people.

.

 

[Rigby5]

People have to stop using the word "regulate" incorrectly. Regulate does not mean restrict. For example, when the constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate interestate commerce, the intent was to facilitate. They wanted the federal government to prevent states from restricting interstate commerce. Regulate does not mean to restrict, but the opposite. It means to prevent restrictions, to keep something regular.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".

this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Regulated does not mean "pass laws that on the books allow gun ownership, but in reality make it so impossible no one really tries"

That's what NYC has done with handguns, and why we don't trust assholes like you when all you say you want is "regulation"

NYC has decided what gun regulations work best in their unique environment

It seems to be working

They have had the same law on the books since the 60's.

It didn't work during the 70's 80's and early 90's that's for sure. Correlation is not causation, and during that period you didn't even haven correlation.

And if NYC can, in your opinion, ignore the 2nd amendment by asking for that waiting period and asking for those fees, why can't Alabama put a 1 week wait on abortions and a $100 fee for one?

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

New York does not "ignore" the the Second Amendment , its gun laws have been upheld by the courts as Constitutional.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Regulated does not mean "pass laws that on the books allow gun ownership, but in reality make it so impossible no one really tries"

That's what NYC has done with handguns, and why we don't trust assholes like you when all you say you want is "regulation"

NYC has decided what gun regulations work best in their unique environment

It seems to be working

They have had the same law on the books since the 60's.

It didn't work during the 70's 80's and early 90's that's for sure. Correlation is not causation, and during that period you didn't even haven correlation.

And if NYC can, in your opinion, ignore the 2nd amendment by asking for that waiting period and asking for those fees, why can't Alabama put a 1 week wait on abortions and a $100 fee for one?

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

New York does not "ignore" the the Second Amendment , its gun laws have been upheld by the courts as Constitutional.

Those courts ignore the 2nd amendment.

Do you think a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees just to keep a revolver in ones own home is fair or not? is it infringement or not?

Dont be a cuck and run to the courts for your answer. answer it yourself, if you have the balls.

 

[skews13]

Shall not be infringed.....

Well regulated

All of the words matter not just the ones you like

The phrase is "well-regulated militia", not "militia with well-regulated weapons".

All of the words matter, not just the ones you like.

This isn't a debate scooter. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Heller, that the states do have the absolute power to regulate guns.

You lost this debate a long time ago.

The NRA in there arrogance thought they could spend millions to challenge the law, which the court promptly turned them down, and all of those regulations stand in place.

Now you have a new generation with the voting numbers to make those regulations even stiffer, and if they vote in the people they want, and the people who are currently refusing to do so out, they are going to get that done, and there isn't thing one you can do about it but whine like a little bitch on usmb.

See you down the road at the voting polls scooter.

This absolutely IS fucking a debate, "Scooter", because the Supreme Court has said a lot of things in its history that were wrong. AND because you leftist tyrants never consider ANYTHING to be the last word on a subject when it's not the word you want, so why should we? AND because we know you aren't going to drop YOUR side of the fight until all guns are outlawed. AND because this is America, and the First Amendment guarantees all of us the right to have opinions and disagree with any branch of the fucking government we want to, up to and including the "sainted" Supreme Court.

So if you can't handle the questions, admit it. But don't try to tell me I don't have the right to ask them.

The Heller decision gave the individual the right to keep a gun in the home for defense. It also gave the states the right to restrict certain types of firearms, or how they may or may not be carried.

I'll tell you what scooter. Take that alligator mouth of yours, and take a gun you are not supposed to have, some place you are not supposed to have it, and let us all know how that works out for you.

You be sure to tell the judge the supreme court is wrong, and that you can carry your gun where ever you want to. I'm sure the judge will come to his senses and let you go.

 

[Camp]

People have to stop using the word "regulate" incorrectly. Regulate does not mean restrict. For example, when the constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate interestate commerce, the intent was to facilitate. They wanted the federal government to prevent states from restricting interstate commerce. Regulate does not mean to restrict, but the opposite. It means to prevent restrictions, to keep something regular.

Your self-made up definition will fail to convince educated people of your idea and a new definition for the use of a word.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Shall not be infringed.....

Well regulated

All of the words matter not just the ones you like

The phrase is "well-regulated militia", not "militia with well-regulated weapons".

All of the words matter, not just the ones you like.

This isn't a debate scooter. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Heller, that the states do have the absolute power to regulate guns.

You lost this debate a long time ago.

The NRA in there arrogance thought they could spend millions to challenge the law, which the court promptly turned them down, and all of those regulations stand in place.

Now you have a new generation with the voting numbers to make those regulations even stiffer, and if they vote in the people they want, and the people who are currently refusing to do so out, they are going to get that done, and there isn't thing one you can do about it but whine like a little bitch on usmb.

See you down the road at the voting polls scooter.

This absolutely IS fucking a debate, "Scooter", because the Supreme Court has said a lot of things in its history that were wrong. AND because you leftist tyrants never consider ANYTHING to be the last word on a subject when it's not the word you want, so why should we? AND because we know you aren't going to drop YOUR side of the fight until all guns are outlawed. AND because this is America, and the First Amendment guarantees all of us the right to have opinions and disagree with any branch of the fucking government we want to, up to and including the "sainted" Supreme Court.

So if you can't handle the questions, admit it. But don't try to tell me I don't have the right to ask them.

The Heller decision gave the individual the right to keep a gun in the home for defense. It also gave the states the right to restrict certain types of firearms, or how they may or may not be carried.

I'll tell you what scooter. Take that alligator mouth of yours, and take a gun you are not supposed to have, some place you are not supposed to have it, and let us all know how that works out for you.

You be sure to tell the judge the supreme court is wrong, and that you can carry your gun where ever you want to. I'm sure the judge will come to his senses and let you go.

The Plessy v. Ferguson decision said that public facilities can be segregated. Should the American people have accepted that as an appropriate interpretation of the law and dropped the subject of civil rights, simply because the Supreme Court said so?

Citizens United said that corporations, labor unions, and other associations have a First Amendment right to spend money on political ads. You leftists haven't dropped THAT subject just because the Supreme Court said so.

Where did I lose you on the whole "First Amendment right to express opinions and disagree with the government"? Too many syllables?

Oh, btw, the Supreme Court does not "give" rights. No government entity does. All they can do is acknowledge them.

 

[skews13]

Well regulated

All of the words matter not just the ones you like

The phrase is "well-regulated militia", not "militia with well-regulated weapons".

All of the words matter, not just the ones you like.

This isn't a debate scooter. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Heller, that the states do have the absolute power to regulate guns.

You lost this debate a long time ago.

The NRA in there arrogance thought they could spend millions to challenge the law, which the court promptly turned them down, and all of those regulations stand in place.

Now you have a new generation with the voting numbers to make those regulations even stiffer, and if they vote in the people they want, and the people who are currently refusing to do so out, they are going to get that done, and there isn't thing one you can do about it but whine like a little bitch on usmb.

See you down the road at the voting polls scooter.

This absolutely IS fucking a debate, "Scooter", because the Supreme Court has said a lot of things in its history that were wrong. AND because you leftist tyrants never consider ANYTHING to be the last word on a subject when it's not the word you want, so why should we? AND because we know you aren't going to drop YOUR side of the fight until all guns are outlawed. AND because this is America, and the First Amendment guarantees all of us the right to have opinions and disagree with any branch of the fucking government we want to, up to and including the "sainted" Supreme Court.

So if you can't handle the questions, admit it. But don't try to tell me I don't have the right to ask them.

The Heller decision gave the individual the right to keep a gun in the home for defense. It also gave the states the right to restrict certain types of firearms, or how they may or may not be carried.

I'll tell you what scooter. Take that alligator mouth of yours, and take a gun you are not supposed to have, some place you are not supposed to have it, and let us all know how that works out for you.

You be sure to tell the judge the supreme court is wrong, and that you can carry your gun where ever you want to. I'm sure the judge will come to his senses and let you go.

The Plessy v. Ferguson decision said that public facilities can be segregated. Should the American people have accepted that as an appropriate interpretation of the law and dropped the subject of civil rights, simply because the Supreme Court said so?

Citizens United said that corporations, labor unions, and other associations have a First Amendment right to spend money on political ads. You leftists haven't dropped THAT subject just because the Supreme Court said so.

Where did I lose you on the whole "First Amendment right to express opinions and disagree with the government"? Too many syllables?

Oh, btw, the Supreme Court does not "give" rights. No government entity does. All they can do is acknowledge them.

Heller is the law of the land whether you like it or not.

The challenge to it by the NRA which just currently happened was declined by the court.

You have no recourse.

Don't get caught with the wrong gun in the wrong place.

End of fucking discussion.

 

[toobfreak]

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Regulated does not mean "pass laws that on the books allow gun ownership, but in reality make it so impossible no one really tries"

That's what NYC has done with handguns, and why we don't trust assholes like you when all you say you want is "regulation"

NYC has decided what gun regulations work best in their unique environment

It seems to be working

They have had the same law on the books since the 60's.

It didn't work during the 70's 80's and early 90's that's for sure. Correlation is not causation, and during that period you didn't even haven correlation.

And if NYC can, in your opinion, ignore the 2nd amendment by asking for that waiting period and asking for those fees, why can't Alabama put a 1 week wait on abortions and a $100 fee for one?

Let NYC decide how much gun regulation is best for their city

The gun rights of someone in Wyoming whose closest neighbor is a mile away does not need to apply to NYC who has a population bigger than the State of Wyoming in one square mile

New York's gun laws are perfectly Constitutional; laws seeking to ban abortion are not.

Is that why my friends who live there call their state Cuomostan?

 

[toobfreak]

BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\

it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.

you're welcome.

Regulated does not mean "pass laws that on the books allow gun ownership, but in reality make it so impossible no one really tries"

That's what NYC has done with handguns, and why we don't trust assholes like you when all you say you want is "regulation"

NYC has decided what gun regulations work best in their unique environment

It seems to be working

They have had the same law on the books since the 60's.

It didn't work during the 70's 80's and early 90's that's for sure. Correlation is not causation, and during that period you didn't even haven correlation.

And if NYC can, in your opinion, ignore the 2nd amendment by asking for that waiting period and asking for those fees, why can't Alabama put a 1 week wait on abortions and a $100 fee for one?

like everything else you post, you're wrong.

we live in NY and have guns. legal guns. after background checks and getting licensed and meeting the requirements of the municipality.

or do you think wife-beaters should have guns, dearie?

no one is ignoring the 2nd amendment. the only limitation on the 2nd is a ban. silly boy.

Do you live in NYC?

And again, what about Alabama requiring a 1 week waiting period and $100 fee for an abortion?

With a gun, you have maybe a 1 in 100,000 chance of killing someone. With an abortion, you have a 100% chance of killing someone! So why do Democrats still support abortion in cases where the mother's life is not in danger?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I have the right to protect myself. You have the right to be a victim if you so choose.

Do you think a criminal gives a shit about the law?

So we should repeal laws against murder?

That's retarded.

 

[Darkwind]

In fact it mandates it.
In the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Heller case written by Justice Scalia the point is made that formal membership in the state militia is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms ...because in the wording of the time "all male adults" are considered to be members of the "citizen militia " to be called upon in times of national defense. Hence, all adult citizens (women too) are members of the general citizens militia and entitled to keep and bear arms.

The plain reading of the Second Amendment " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed " obviously requires a well regulated militia

Well, the general citizens militia is not "well regulated", it's hardly regulated at all!
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type. It's important to note that in the Heller decision Scalia made the expressed point that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.

Our leaders have failed us and allowed the NRA to make a perversion of the 2nd Amendment and our daily lives a game of Russian roulette - who will be next to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I suggest you upgrade you 'plain reading' skills.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The phrase is "well-regulated militia", not "militia with well-regulated weapons".

All of the words matter, not just the ones you like.

This isn't a debate scooter. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Heller, that the states do have the absolute power to regulate guns.

You lost this debate a long time ago.

The NRA in there arrogance thought they could spend millions to challenge the law, which the court promptly turned them down, and all of those regulations stand in place.

Now you have a new generation with the voting numbers to make those regulations even stiffer, and if they vote in the people they want, and the people who are currently refusing to do so out, they are going to get that done, and there isn't thing one you can do about it but whine like a little bitch on usmb.

See you down the road at the voting polls scooter.

This absolutely IS fucking a debate, "Scooter", because the Supreme Court has said a lot of things in its history that were wrong. AND because you leftist tyrants never consider ANYTHING to be the last word on a subject when it's not the word you want, so why should we? AND because we know you aren't going to drop YOUR side of the fight until all guns are outlawed. AND because this is America, and the First Amendment guarantees all of us the right to have opinions and disagree with any branch of the fucking government we want to, up to and including the "sainted" Supreme Court.

So if you can't handle the questions, admit it. But don't try to tell me I don't have the right to ask them.

The Heller decision gave the individual the right to keep a gun in the home for defense. It also gave the states the right to restrict certain types of firearms, or how they may or may not be carried.

I'll tell you what scooter. Take that alligator mouth of yours, and take a gun you are not supposed to have, some place you are not supposed to have it, and let us all know how that works out for you.

You be sure to tell the judge the supreme court is wrong, and that you can carry your gun where ever you want to. I'm sure the judge will come to his senses and let you go.

The Plessy v. Ferguson decision said that public facilities can be segregated. Should the American people have accepted that as an appropriate interpretation of the law and dropped the subject of civil rights, simply because the Supreme Court said so?

Citizens United said that corporations, labor unions, and other associations have a First Amendment right to spend money on political ads. You leftists haven't dropped THAT subject just because the Supreme Court said so.

Where did I lose you on the whole "First Amendment right to express opinions and disagree with the government"? Too many syllables?

Oh, btw, the Supreme Court does not "give" rights. No government entity does. All they can do is acknowledge them.

Heller is the law of the land whether you like it or not.

The challenge to it by the NRA which just currently happened was declined by the court.

You have no recourse.

Don't get caught with the wrong gun in the wrong place.

End of fucking discussion.

"It's the law, so THERE!" And I'm not supposed to notice that that NEVER ends the fucking discussion when YOU assholes don't like the law.

Leftist is another word for hypocrite.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In fact it mandates it

The 2A does not mandare anything. It prohibits something.

As the caselaw clearly indicates, the 2A limits the power of the fed gov. So, a state may limit certain guns or accessories, but "shall not be infringed" means no laws or rules restricting.

Furthermore, the word "regulate" as used in the 2A refers to the militia, not the arms.

All federal gun laws infringe, and should be repealed, with the states having exclusive authority.

 

[Rigby5]

People have to stop using the word "regulate" incorrectly. Regulate does not mean restrict. For example, when the constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate interestate commerce, the intent was to facilitate. They wanted the federal government to prevent states from restricting interstate commerce. Regulate does not mean to restrict, but the opposite. It means to prevent restrictions, to keep something regular.

Your self-made up definition will fail to convince educated people of your idea and a new definition for the use of a word.

Oh, so then when the doctor gives you something to make your digestive system more "regular", he wants to restrict it according to you?
The point of giving the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce was not to restrict it but to prevent states from restricting it.
It is not a "new" definition, but simply being aware of how the founders used language back then.