we are not evil for defending the 2nd amendment

[Mr Natural]

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

 

[M14 Shooter]

GC proposals being talked about now have nothing to do with Newtown, that's over with; but that doesn't mean we should not engage in a national conversation about what might be done to reduce the chances of another mass killing in the future by somebody using mass casualty weapons.

Ok.... and how do you suppose reinstating the AWB will do that?

Current jurispridence shows that these are -exactly- the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd, as to qualify for the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for and effective in the service of the milita, and part of the ordinary military equipment commonly in use at the time. It is impossible to soundly argue that 'assault weapons' do not fall under this description.

I dunno about that

I do. US v Miller,(1939) and expanded upon in Heller,(2008).
Feel free to read the cases and point out the flaw in my interpretation; absent that, I will accept your concession of the point.

To suppose that means that every civilian should have access to the same weapons and keep them at home when the military itself cannot is wrong IMHO.

Aside from the fact that members of the milia, by its very nature, brings the weapons they have on hand with them when in service, thereby necessitating that they keep those weapons at home...

No one has made the argument that every civilian should have access to the same weapons (as the military) and keep them at home.

 

[JustTheFacts]

GC proposals being talked about now have nothing to do with Newtown, that's over with; but that doesn't mean we should not engage in a national conversation about what might be done to reduce the chances of another mass killing in the future by somebody using mass casualty weapons.

Ok.... and how do you suppose reinstating the AWB will do that?

I dunno about that

I do. US v Miller,(1939) and expanded upon in Heller,(2008).
Feel free to read the cases and point out the flaw in my interpretation; absent that, I will accept your concession of the point.

To suppose that means that every civilian should have access to the same weapons and keep them at home when the military itself cannot is wrong IMHO.

Aside from the fact that memebers of the milia, by its very nature, brings the weapons they have on hand with them when in service, thereby necessitating that they keep those weapons at home...

No one has made the argument that every civilian should have access to the same weapons (as the military) and keep them at home.

Unless you qualify that with "in THIS thread" that is so not true, there are plenty of folks in the other forums screaming that citizens should have the right to have the same weapons as the military for home defense.

Those people do NOTHING to help the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure you agree with that statement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

GC proposals being talked about now have nothing to do with Newtown, that's over with; but that doesn't mean we should not engage in a national conversation about what might be done to reduce the chances of another mass killing in the future by somebody using mass casualty weapons.

Ok.... and how do you suppose reinstating the AWB will do that?


I do. US v Miller,(1939) and expanded upon in Heller,(2008).
Feel free to read the cases and point out the flaw in my interpretation; absent that, I will accept your concession of the point.

To suppose that means that every civilian should have access to the same weapons and keep them at home when the military itself cannot is wrong IMHO.

Aside from the fact that memebers of the milia, by its very nature, brings the weapons they have on hand with them when in service, thereby necessitating that they keep those weapons at home...

No one has made the argument that every civilian should have access to the same weapons (as the military) and keep them at home.

Unless you qualify that with "in THIS thread" that is so not true, there are plenty of folks in the other forums screaming that citizens should have the right to have the same weapons as the military for home defense.

The point of contention is "every civilian". No one argues that.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Ok.... and how do you suppose reinstating the AWB will do that?


I do. US v Miller,(1939) and expanded upon in Heller,(2008).
Feel free to read the cases and point out the flaw in my interpretation; absent that, I will accept your concession of the point.


Aside from the fact that memebers of the milia, by its very nature, brings the weapons they have on hand with them when in service, thereby necessitating that they keep those weapons at home...

No one has made the argument that every civilian should have access to the same weapons (as the military) and keep them at home.

Unless you qualify that with "in THIS thread" that is so not true, there are plenty of folks in the other forums screaming that citizens should have the right to have the same weapons as the military for home defense.

The point of contention is "every civilian". No one argues that.

you completely avoided my implied question, so I will ask outright.

Do you admit that there are people out there who believe that either they should be given access to the same weapons as the police and or military for home defense (which would obviously necessitate keeping the weapons you know AT home) or that the police and military should give up said weapons?

If you don't admit it, this line of the conversation is over and I will just wrap it up as you are unwilling to look at both sides and move on.

If however you admit that yes those people do exist, do you further acknowledge that they are hurting rather than helping your cause ?

I myself , as I have told you believe that the COTUS prohibits the US government from banning ANY weapons at all. But I also believe it was only ever meant to apply to the federal government , and so local and even states should be able to do whatever in regards to weapons, and that is two areas in which the SCOTUS made wrong calls, but those battles are long lost friend, and nothing will change that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unless you qualify that with "in THIS thread" that is so not true, there are plenty of folks in the other forums screaming that citizens should have the right to have the same weapons as the military for home defense.

The point of contention is "every civilian". No one argues that.

you completely avoided my implied question, so I will ask outright.

Your question was not relevant to the point I made, which I made clear in my response, and thus I have no need to address it.
:shrug:

I myself , as I have told you believe that the COTUS prohibits the US government from banning ANY weapons at all.

Indeed.

But I also believe it was only ever meant to apply to the federal government

As did the entire bill of rights, all of which was changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment.

and so local and even states should be able to do whatever in regards to weapons,

Except for the 14h amendment, yes.

and that is two areas in which the SCOTUS made wrong calls

Not sure how the SCotUS made the wrong call in incorporating any of the bill of rights thru the 14th. Please explain.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The point of contention is "every civilian". No one argues that.

you completely avoided my implied question, so I will ask outright.

Your question was not relevant to the point I made, which I made clear in my response, and thus I have no need to address it.
:shrug:


Indeed.


As did the entire bill of rights, all of which was changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment.

and so local and even states should be able to do whatever in regards to weapons,

Except for the 14h amendment, yes.

and that is two areas in which the SCOTUS made wrong calls

Not sure how the SCotUS made the wrong call in incorporating any of the bill of rights thru the 14th. Please explain.

Heading home, don't expect to get online tonight, don't want to give you the impression that I'm avoiding you.

I'll be back.

 

[Ringel05]

Unless you qualify that with "in THIS thread" that is so not true, there are plenty of folks in the other forums screaming that citizens should have the right to have the same weapons as the military for home defense.

The point of contention is "every civilian". No one argues that.

you completely avoided my implied question, so I will ask outright.

Do you admit that there are people out there who believe that either they should be given access to the same weapons as the police and or military for home defense (which would obviously necessitate keeping the weapons you know AT home) or that the police and military should give up said weapons?

If you don't admit it, this line of the conversation is over and I will just wrap it up as you are unwilling to look at both sides and move on.

If however you admit that yes those people do exist, do you further acknowledge that they are hurting rather than helping your cause ?

I myself , as I have told you believe that the COTUS prohibits the US government from banning ANY weapons at all. But I also believe it was only ever meant to apply to the federal government , and so local and even states should be able to do whatever in regards to weapons, and that is two areas in which the SCOTUS made wrong calls, but those battles are long lost friend, and nothing will change that.

Unfortunately the "we want it all crowd" hurts one side of the argument just as the "ban em all crowd" hurts the other side. Thankfully both represent the minority extreme views. As for the states having the authority to regulate as they see fit that is slowly being eroded due to the 14th Amendment being more broadly interpreted in respect to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you completely avoided my implied question, so i will ask outright.

your question was not relevant to the point i made, which i made clear in my response, and thus i have no need to address it.
:shrug:


Indeed.


As did the entire bill of rights, all of which was changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment.


Except for the 14h amendment, yes.

and that is two areas in which the scotus made wrong calls

not sure how the scotus made the wrong call in incorporating any of the bill of rights thru the 14th. Please explain.

heading home, don't expect to get online tonight, don't want to give you the impression that i'm avoiding you.

I'll be back.

10-4

 

[M14 Shooter]

As for the states having the authority to regulate as they see fit that is slowly being eroded due to the 14th Amendment being more broadly interpreted in respect to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I prsume you mean the 14th, in relation to the 2nd, has been more boradly interpreted than the 14th in relation to the other rights protected by the bill of rights.
Specifically, how so?

 

[Billo_Really]

1: Where in the Constitution did you find the text that grants this power?

I just quoted you the text.

2: If this power exists, it is limited by the 2nd amendment; volating the 2nd Amendment is a violation of the Constitution.
So, again:
Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution?

People have a right to bear arms and Congress has the authority to regulate those arms if they become a problem to the general welfare of the nation.

The 2nd Amendment isn't what a lot of people think it is. It's for an armed militia in a time of war, not armed insurrection against the government.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The 2nd Amendment isn't what a lot of people think it is. It's for an armed militia in a time of war, not armed insurrection against the government.

Nope.

Individual right affirmed by SCOTUS in Heller v. DC and incorporated in McDonald v. Chicago.

 

[Billo_Really]

The 2nd Amendment isn't what a lot of people think it is. It's for an armed militia in a time of war, not armed insurrection against the government.

Nope.

Individual right affirmed by SCOTUS in Heller v. DC and incorporated in McDonald v. Chicago.

The right to bear arms is for the security of the state, not security of the individual.

The first half of the Second Amendment explains why people should have a right to bear arms:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … “​

Bearing arms in a well-regulated militia did not mean bearing guns that can reliably shoot well, since such didn’t exist. It certainly didn’t mean bearing guns that can kill entire crowds of people without reloading. It didn’t mean bearing arms outside of the well regulated militia. Much less did it mean bearing arms in school and church and Wal-Mart.

 

[Ringel05]

As for the states having the authority to regulate as they see fit that is slowly being eroded due to the 14th Amendment being more broadly interpreted in respect to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I prsume you mean the 14th, in relation to the 2nd, has been more boradly interpreted than the 14th in relation to the other rights protected by the bill of rights.
Specifically, how so?

You presume incorrectly.

 

[Ringel05]

The 2nd Amendment isn't what a lot of people think it is. It's for an armed militia in a time of war, not armed insurrection against the government.

Nope.

Individual right affirmed by SCOTUS in Heller v. DC and incorporated in McDonald v. Chicago.

The right to bear arms is for the security of the state, not security of the individual.

The first half of the Second Amendment explains why people should have a right to bear arms:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … “​

Bearing arms in a well-regulated militia did not mean bearing guns that can reliably shoot well, since such didn’t exist. It certainly didn’t mean bearing guns that can kill entire crowds of people without reloading. It didn’t mean bearing arms outside of the well regulated militia. Much less did it mean bearing arms in school and church and Wal-Mart.

SCOTUS has already ruled against your interpretation and sided with this to be interpreted as an individual right.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[M14 Shooter]

As for the states having the authority to regulate as they see fit that is slowly being eroded due to the 14th Amendment being more broadly interpreted in respect to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I prsume you mean the 14th, in relation to the 2nd, has been more boradly interpreted than the 14th in relation to the other rights protected by the bill of rights.
Specifically, how so?

You presume incorrectly.

Ok...
Then please explain what you mean.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1: Where in the Constitution did you find the text that grants this power?

I just quoted you the text.

Cite the article and section.

2: If this power exists, it is limited by the 2nd amendment; volating the 2nd Amendment is a violation of the Constitution.
So, again:
Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution?

People have a right to bear arms and Congress has the authority to regulate those arms if they become a problem to the general welfare of the nation.

This regulation cannot violate the 2nd amendment. and thus, you're back to square 1.
Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution

The 2nd Amendment isn't what a lot of people think it is. It's for an armed militia in a time of war, not armed insurrection against the government.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd Amendment isn't what a lot of people think it is. It's for an armed militia in a time of war, not armed insurrection against the government.

Nope.

Individual right affirmed by SCOTUS in Heller v. DC and incorporated in McDonald v. Chicago.

The right to bear arms is for the security of the state, not security of the individual.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

i am seeing a lot of left wing media claiming that people that are against Obama and the left going after the 2nd amendment as not caring about children !! really ??let me tell you something .we are not trying to endanger our children or anyone when we stand up for the 2nd amendment !! yes we care about children !!!! thats why we are against abortion for convenience !! let me ask you leftist this one question why are you afraid of outlawing partial birth abortions ??i'll answer for you ...you are afraid that it would be the 1st step in overthrowing Roe v Wade !! AND IF THAT IS THE REASONS WHY CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT TAMPERING WITH THE 2ND AMENDMENT !!

and likewise those who advocate some sensible gun control are not evil.

Glad to clear that up for you.

Not infringing on our 2nd Amendment Rights.


-Jeremiah

 

[Ringel05]

I prsume you mean the 14th, in relation to the 2nd, has been more boradly interpreted than the 14th in relation to the other rights protected by the bill of rights.
Specifically, how so?

You presume incorrectly.

Ok...
Specifically, how so?

The Due Process Clause is being used to make the Bill of Rights applicable to all the states as well as recognize substantive and procedural rights.