The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by P@triot, Jan 7, 2018.

  1. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    43,321
    Thanks Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +15,924
    He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
    • Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
    • Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
     
  2. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    48,396
    Thanks Received:
    14,378
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +32,041

    There is no possible system to prevent a tyrannical government from developing. Anyone who promises you otherwise has very questionable motives or is a complete idiot.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. asaratis
    Offline

    asaratis Uppity Senior Citizen

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,907
    Thanks Received:
    3,204
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Stockbridge
    Ratings:
    +7,318
    Abortion is legalized murder. Gun ownership is not.
     
  4. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    43,668
    Thanks Received:
    5,882
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +17,396
    It was explained in the body of the link

    And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.

    No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights

    Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.



    And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2018
  5. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    43,321
    Thanks Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +15,924
    Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.

    No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.

    Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
     
  6. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    43,668
    Thanks Received:
    5,882
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +17,396
    Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"

    Please quote me where I did.

    I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.

    And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.

    We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.

    That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.

    What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
     
  7. Slade3200
    Online

    Slade3200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2016
    Messages:
    16,937
    Thanks Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,171
    Who is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?
     
  8. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    43,321
    Thanks Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +15,924
    Very few Americans believe prohibition of guns in the civilian population is the ultimate goal of gun control advocates; most Americans understand that prohibitions don't work. Most of those obsessed with preventing any form of gun control use the slippery slope argument.

    Stated above, "That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm" strikes me as naive, given human nature and the daily cost in blood and treasure guns create.

    The NRA, those who profit from gun sales, and its supporters enable the illegal use of firearms. Since we cannot predict who is and will remain a law abiding citizen, we need to control guns.

    That does not mean I would support the confiscation of the guns already in the public domain, notwithstanding what others may allege. I've detailed my opinion ad nausea, and it includes Licensing and Registration legally established by State Governments when the People support such legislation.
     
  9. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,808
    Thanks Received:
    11,416
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,446

    Yes.....you don't like the truth, facts or reality, so you call it bullshit.....
     
  10. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,808
    Thanks Received:
    11,416
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,446

    Keep telling us it's raining while you piss on our legs......

    Oh Look, Another Reason Why We Should Be Skeptical Of Democrats On Gun Control

    Now, YouGov has a poll showing that 82 percent of Democrats want to ban semiautomatic firearms, while they’re evenly split on a total handgun ban. This is where the party stands on gun rights, our civil right to own firearms. They want to shred the Second Amendment and the gauge of Democratic Party members offers a dark vision of what could come if enough of these people are elected to Congress. Allahpundit broke down the numbers:
    ----
    Democrats are also evenly split at 39/41 on, uh, whether to repeal the Second Amendment.

    The cost of an unarmed population is higher in blood and money......the more Americans who are armed, the safer we are...

    We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
    -- gun murder down 49%

    --gun crime down 75%

    --violent crime down 72%


    Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

    Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

     

Share This Page