CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms

[blunthead]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

This is a good question. When it comes to thoughts like these I like to hear from lawmakers who are, hopefully anyway, experts on why laws say what they do. Their logic usually trumps mine.

 

[KokomoJojo]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

This is a good question. When it comes to thoughts like these I like to hear from lawmakers who are, hopefully anyway, experts on why laws say what they do. Their logic usually trumps mine.

very simple they will tell you they have the authority under the constitution to do so.

Do they?

 

[blunthead]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

This is a good question. When it comes to thoughts like these I like to hear from lawmakers who are, hopefully anyway, experts on why laws say what they do. Their logic usually trumps mine.

very simple they will tell you they have the authority under the constitution to do so.

Do they?

No, I mean they will explain why something that seems illogical is actually logical, see? I would hope a lawmaker could explain why knives are regulated as they are.

 

[KokomoJojo]

because they can. same reason arms are regulated despite its a violation of the constitution.

 

[blunthead]

because they can. same reason arms are regulated despite its a violation of the constitution.

I think you're missing my point. Sometimes I don't understand a law or a rule. When it's explained to me then I understand.

 

[KokomoJojo]

well I already explained it to you. "because they can"
their reasoning (or lack thereof) is irrelevant since it is in violation of the constitution(s).

 

[blunthead]

well I already explained it to you. "because they can"
their reasoning (or lack thereof) is irrelevant since it is in violation of the constitution(s).

You're not hearing me. If they answer other than "because we can" (which of course they won't in reality, with the possible exception of Obama who thinks the WH is his house) with a logical, even if unconstitutional answer, I'd enjoy hearing it. I like the legal field; I enjoy the logic applied after hard thinking by people who understand how to make good laws, or at least logical ones.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't worry it is just Kokomojo "trolling" like usual.

 

[KokomoJojo]

well I already explained it to you. "because they can"
their reasoning (or lack thereof) is irrelevant since it is in violation of the constitution(s).

You're not hearing me. If they answer other than "because we can" (which of course they won't in reality, with the possible exception of Obama who thinks the WH is his house) with a logical, even if unconstitutional answer, I'd enjoy hearing it. I like the legal field; I enjoy the logic applied after hard thinking by people who understand how to make good laws, or at least logical ones.

when you have heard and dealt with as much as I have the enjoyment dies fast.

in fact its quite boring. Virtually the whole police state hangs it hat on health/safety/ public welfare, as I said in spite of constitutional restrictions.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the Right doesn't seem to care about our War on Drugs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again for the slow and stupid.... The 2nd amendment gives the right to be armed to the people. The mention of the militia is simply one of many reasons that is true.

Are the slower and stupider the most full of fallacy. Nothing but diversion? Why not explain, in your own words why you believe that is true; and, cite our Constitution for each and every assertion. Or, is a social, true witness bearing "work ethic" too difficult for the capitalist Right.

It has been told to you a thousand times, read the fucking federalist papers the founders own words. Then check out the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller. The RIGHT to own firearms to keep and bear them is PERSONAL individual right, with no requirement to belong to or be eligible to belong to a militia. An English professor of some renown parsed the Amendment a well and stated that the operating clause is the part that gives the right to the people and that the militia part is just one of what could be NUMEROUS reasons to own firearms.

Dude, with Appeals to Ignorance like that; I know All I need is a Fasces of Power to have y'all follow me to hell and back; if, we make it back.

In other words you do not do facts and just make your shit up wholesale, thanks for clearing that up.

In other words, I Only resort to our supreme law of the land in my arguments because I am not lazy, like the Right.

The supreme law says that the 2nd is an individual right not associated with any requirement to belong to a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Are the slower and stupider the most full of fallacy. Nothing but diversion? Why not explain, in your own words why you believe that is true; and, cite our Constitution for each and every assertion. Or, is a social, true witness bearing "work ethic" too difficult for the capitalist Right.

It has been told to you a thousand times, read the fucking federalist papers the founders own words. Then check out the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller. The RIGHT to own firearms to keep and bear them is PERSONAL individual right, with no requirement to belong to or be eligible to belong to a militia. An English professor of some renown parsed the Amendment a well and stated that the operating clause is the part that gives the right to the people and that the militia part is just one of what could be NUMEROUS reasons to own firearms.

Dude, with Appeals to Ignorance like that; I know All I need is a Fasces of Power to have y'all follow me to hell and back; if, we make it back.

In other words you do not do facts and just make your shit up wholesale, thanks for clearing that up.

In other words, I Only resort to our supreme law of the land in my arguments because I am not lazy, like the Right.

The supreme law says that the 2nd is an individual right not associated with any requirement to belong to a militia.

No, it doesn't. It says Only well regulated Militias of the People (who Are the militia) may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the several United States or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific and Individual terms of acquire and possess.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Notice how the non-private property Terms, Keep and Bear, are nowhere to be found.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

what knives

 

[blunthead]

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific and Individual terms of acquire and possess.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Notice how the non-private property Terms, Keep and Bear, are nowhere to be found.

WTF are you even talking about?

 

[KokomoJojo]

WTF are you even talking about?

Its a literacy problem. you guys were right, a waste of time.

 

[blunthead]

WTF are you even talking about?

Its a literacy problem. you guys were right, a waste of time.

I guess what danielpalos was getting at was that the same terms used in the 2nd Amendment aren't used in the Declaration of Independence, but I didn't see what his point was.

 

[Auld Phart]

Daniel is try to convince that all the people are part of the militia, even tho proven wrong on that point several times.

 

[danielpalos]

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific and Individual terms of acquire and possess.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Notice how the non-private property Terms, Keep and Bear, are nowhere to be found.

WTF are you even talking about?

Dude, are you on the Right? Only the reading comprehension challenged have a problem with it.

 

[danielpalos]

WTF are you even talking about?

Its a literacy problem. you guys were right, a waste of time.

Yes, it is; The Right is too lazy to develop a reading comprehension ethic because it is too much work, while claiming a hard work ethic is important under any form of Capitalism.