Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I am.

Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...

I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.

The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment.

Heller/McDonald is that current jurisprudence, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Founding Document to issue rulings as to what the Constitution means, where the Constitution codifies an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to militia service, meaning the elderly and handicapped have a right to possess a firearm.

 

[Auld Phart]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I am.

Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...

I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.

The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment.

Heller/McDonald is that current jurisprudence, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Founding Document to issue rulings as to what the Constitution means, where the Constitution codifies an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to militia service, meaning the elderly and handicapped have a right to possess a firearm.

Finally found something we can agree on.

 

[Iceweasel]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The problem is you get your world view from cartoons and comedy shows. First, the basis of your argument is wrong. The second also says 'the right of the people'. How that gets constantly filtered from the reptilian leftist brain is an amazing thing.

Plus, it is no longer a right if we need state permission and a certificate. It would then be like driving, a privilege if you do xyz.

Finally, the shooting aren't happening from ccw holders, most shooting are illegally gotten guns or carried and a class isn't going to stop someone from mass murder. Pretty sure they already know that's illegal.

 

[Pogo]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist. Except those granted by man. And voilà, right back where we started. Lather, rinse, repeat. Deflection fails.

The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?

You sure God is a man-made invention? Prove it.

Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God? If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.

Prove it isn't. That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.

.......

Exactly.
Now tell me all about this "ignorance".

 

[gipper]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm


The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist. Except those granted by man. And voilà, right back where we started. Lather, rinse, repeat. Deflection fails.

The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?

You sure God is a man-made invention? Prove it.

Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God? If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.

Prove it isn't. That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.

.......

Exactly.
Now tell me all about this "ignorance".

Prove God does not exist.

Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.


I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist. Except those granted by man. And voilà, right back where we started. Lather, rinse, repeat. Deflection fails.

The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?

You sure God is a man-made invention? Prove it.

Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God? If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.

Prove it isn't. That is, prove the positive, that "God" invented itself or exists in any way.
Show me some reference -- any reference anywhere --- that wasn't written by man.

.......

Exactly.
Now tell me all about this "ignorance".

Prove God does not exist.

Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.

I don't need to -- it's a negative. YOU would need to prove the positive.
That's never been done in human history, so rotsa ruck with that.

Your original point was, and we quote:
"The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right."

Onus is all yours.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist. Except those granted by man. And voilà, right back where we started. Lather, rinse, repeat. Deflection fails.

The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?

You sure God is a man-made invention? Prove it.

Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God? If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists, where religion and later 'gods' were created by men.

But this has nothing to do with our inalienable rights.

Our inalienable rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, as a consequence of our ability to reason, think, and be self-aware; our inalienable rights explain why when one is born in the United States – a jurisdiction which acknowledges and codifies its citizens' inalienable rights – he is a citizen of the United States regardless who his parents are, the inalienable right of citizenship that, like our other inalienable rights, can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

And if government seeks to limit or restrict those rights, the state is held to a high standard of proof, where the burden of proof rests solely with the state to justify limiting or restricting citizens' rights.

Indeed, that our inalienable rights are guaranteed and recognized because of our humanity, they are infinitely more secure than rights 'guaranteed' by a deity or religious dogma created by man.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.

So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?

And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.

 

[PredFan]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.

So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?

And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.

Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.

So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?

And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.

Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.

True. Yet, you made a claim: "There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right"; and I made an observation: "And you dare to call yourself a Conservative" which you ignored and deflected to a personal attack. Thus we can conclude you're a hypocrite as well as an asshole.

 

[PredFan]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.

So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?

And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.

Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.

True. Yet, you made a claim: "There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right"; and I made an observation: "And you dare to call yourself a Conservative" which you ignored and deflected to a personal attack. Thus we can conclude you're a hypocrite as well as an asshole.

Shut up moron, I'm a conservative and a libertarian, there is no doubting that and the rantings of a partisan hack liberal do nothing to change that. There is no compromise on a constitutional right. Period. Go play in the street retard.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No. There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right.

So you support the 14th, 15th (you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 16th (income tax), the 17th (direct election of Senators), the 19th (again, you oppose efforts by some states to suppress the vote), the 24th and the 26th (once again you oppose voter suppression) Amendments to the COTUS?

And you dare to call yourself a Conservative.

Constitutional rights moron. The 16th and 17th are not rights. Know the difference idiot.

True. Yet, you made a claim: "There shall be no compromise on a Constitutional right"; and I made an observation: "And you dare to call yourself a Conservative" which you ignored and deflected to a personal attack. Thus we can conclude you're a hypocrite as well as an asshole.

Shut up moron, I'm a conservative and a libertarian, there is no doubting that and the rantings of a partisan hack liberal do nothing to change that. There is no compromise on a constitutional right. Period. Go play in the street retard.

The lady protests too much, methinks. Being a conservative and a libertarian means you're an idealist, sans pragmatism with a stick up your ass.

 

[JoeB131]

You do realize that we beat the best army at the time, right? Or does history elude you? Nevermind.

Really? Did the British army have tanks and drones and bombers?

oh, by the way. The only reason the Founding Slave Rapists won is because the French helped htem. But never mind.

So 67% of them have nothing to do with the gun (they'd have found a different tool if the gun wasn't available)

1000 of them are criminal negligence issues.

The rest are homicides. Almost all of which are committed by people who are already criminals and with illegal guns.

Doesn't seem to me that much would change even if we made guns totally illegal.

Not true- you eliminate a method of suicide, suicides decline.

And most homicides happen between people who know each other.
Which is why have thousands of homicides and other industrial democracies only have hundreds.

 

[JoeB131]

f you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.

Guy, gun murder victims are just as likely to come from your White trash trailer park in the south than a ghetto.

 

[JoeB131]

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

What if there is no God?

What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.

Except that never happens. Usually when a government becomes tyrannical, it's with the help of armed people who've gotten tired of democracy, not the other way around.

This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.

America isn't exceptional. Countries with widespread gun ownership still ended up with dictatorships.

 

[JoeB131]

Prove God does not exist.

Prove that the Bible was entirely written by man.

That's an easy one. The bible says the world was flat.

God would know it wasn't, if he existed.

 

[gipper]

Da

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

What if there is no God?

What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.

Except that never happens. Usually when a government becomes tyrannical, it's with the help of armed people who've gotten tired of democracy, not the other way around.

This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.

America isn't exceptional. Countries with widespread gun ownership still ended up with dictatorships.

Damn Joey... You have no clue...please go back to dem underground.

 

[Granny]

We don't need to mess around with the 2nd Amendment, period. As already stated above, we all have a right to bear arms. The way things are going in this country these days we may all have to get guns whether we want them or not. The illegal (underground) sales of guns is a problem that needs to be addressed. The whining that "guns kill people" is ridiculous - guns don't just jump out of a drawer, a gun safe or other place, load themselves and shoot themselves at will. People with ill will do all of that. Same principle applies to kitchen knives, screwdrivers, lead pipes or anything else ... there's a person up to no good guiding the instrument of choice to bring harm to another person.

Additionally, use of a militia by the state can be a bad thing if the state should happen to want to bring its own citizens under control. Read a few history books.

 

[JoeB131]

Da

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

What if there is no God?

What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.

Except that never happens. Usually when a government becomes tyrannical, it's with the help of armed people who've gotten tired of democracy, not the other way around.

This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.

America isn't exceptional. Countries with widespread gun ownership still ended up with dictatorships.

Damn Joey... You have no clue...please go back to dem underground.

Duly noted you couldn't refute any point made.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We don't need to mess around with the 2nd Amendment, period. As already stated above, we all have a right to bear arms. The way things are going in this country these days we may all have to get guns whether we want them or not. The illegal (underground) sales of guns is a problem that needs to be addressed. The whining that "guns kill people" is ridiculous - guns don't just jump out of a drawer, a gun safe or other place, load themselves and shoot themselves at will. People with ill will do all of that. Same principle applies to kitchen knives, screwdrivers, lead pipes or anything else ... there's a person up to no good guiding the instrument of choice to bring harm to another person.

Additionally, use of a militia by the state can be a bad thing if the state should happen to want to bring its own citizens under control. Read a few history books.

How many people have been killed by someone with a kitchen knife, a screw driver or a lead pipe from a distance of 20 feet?