Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone

[Hiryuu]

You do know that every male has to register for the draft at 18 don't you?

If that is not being a member of the militia what is?

If by Draft you mean follow the laws passed by their State in regards to a Regulated Militia where the Federal government has not been granted the power to govern, I guess you could look at it that way.

It wouldn't violate the Constitution ...

And By the way Jackass ... It didn't mention male ... It said citizen.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And what about this

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

That right there is a load of bullshit.

With experience concerning both Federal and International regulatory compliance, when the need to identify intent is necessary, it is a rule (not a desire) that ...

"If in determining the intent of a statute, regulation, or governing document, you cannot arrive at an intent that doesn't violate one or more provisions stated therein, then you haven't properly identified the intent."

In regards to and respect of what is actually written in the Constitution the entire attempt to violate the last provision of the Second Amendment, especially in the retarded exercise of using two other provision mentioned, and then convoluting the garbage you get doing so by pretending it is smart, is humorous.

Example:
A State (because the Tenth Amendment allows States to govern what the Federal government has not been granted the power to do) could pass a law where every citizen 18 years old or older is required to own an AR-15, ammunition and be prepared to answer the call in defense of the Free State in order to Regulate a Militia.

None of that violates any provision of the Second Amendment, or the Constitution as a whole, and provides for every provision listed in the Second Amendment.

Your example does fit within the 2A, but that does not express any intent.

The intent absolutely clear--

It is telling the people of the States that it is okay to ratify this new constitution. It is saying:

"We understand that States need an armed body of people to prevent invasions, etc. This new federal government we're forming will not infringe on the rights of those people to be armed."

So, what needs to happen to every federal gun law?

It is really simple.
.

 

[Hiryuu]

And what about this

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

That right there is a load of bullshit.

With experience concerning both Federal and International regulatory compliance, when the need to identify intent is necessary, it is a rule (not a desire) that ...

"If in determining the intent of a statute, regulation, or governing document, you cannot arrive at an intent that doesn't violate one or more provisions stated therein, then you haven't properly identified the intent."

In regards to and respect of what is actually written in the Constitution the entire attempt to violate the last provision of the Second Amendment, especially in the retarded exercise of using two other provision mentioned, and then convoluting the garbage you get doing so by pretending it is smart, is humorous.

Example:
A State (because the Tenth Amendment allows States to govern what the Federal government has not been granted the power to do) could pass a law where every citizen 18 years old or older is required to own an AR-15, ammunition and be prepared to answer the call in defense of the Free State in order to Regulate a Militia.

None of that violates any provision of the Second Amendment, or the Constitution as a whole, and provides for every provision listed in the Second Amendment.

Your example does fit within the 2A, but that does not express any intent.

The intent absolutely clear--

It is telling the people of the States that it is okay to ratify this new constitution. It is saying:

"We understand that States need an armed body of people to prevent invasions, etc. This new federal government we're forming will not infringe on the rights of those people to be armed."

So, what needs to happen to every federal gun law?

It is really simple.
.

It was an example of what could be done with respects to what the intent could be as well as all of the provisions listed.

As far as intent is concerned, you just have to distinguish an intent that doesn't violate any of the provision listed.
The piece the poster attached attempt to use two provision listed, in order to violate another provision.

It is simple, you don't need to make things up or try to make them mean something they don't, in order to follow the law

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The piece the poster attached attempt to use two provision listed, in order to violate another provision.

How?

I am not saying you're wrong.

What 2 provisions were used, and what provision was violated?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

From what i read the old guy left the gun in a Jeep and an unattended 8 year old kid got hold of it.

Seems to me both the owner of the gun and the mother contributed to the causal circumstances that resulted in this accident

Wrong. It was the gun's fault, and they all must be destroyed because of it.

.

 

[Hiryuu]

The piece the poster attached attempt to use two provision listed, in order to violate another provision.

How?

I am not saying you're wrong.

What 2 provisions were used, and what provision was violated?

You cannot use "the Defense of the Free State" and "Regulated Militia" to violate "Shall not be infringed" in regards to the Federal Government and powers enumerated in the Constitution.

The example was simply a way you could satisfy all those without violating any of them.

I chose that particular example because it is truly the exact opposite of what some people would like to interpret. It should also allow the person reading who may be against gun rights, to understand that they not only could be wrong, but very well may be dead wrong as far as intent is concerned.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I chose that particular example because it is truly the exact opposite of what some people would like to interpret. It should also allow the person reading who may be against gun rights, to understand that they not only could be wrong but very well may be dead wrong as far as intent is concerned.

I think I understand what you are saying in the second half, but I still don't know what you mean by this:

You cannot use "the Defense of the Free State" and "Regulated Militia" to violate "Shall not be infringed" in regards to the Federal Government and powers enumerated in the Constitution.

What do you mean by "violate"? I am not following.

A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. That is a statement of fact only. It has no operative, legal effect.
("is" is a "be" verb, so this is a correct conjugation in place of "being". Am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem = forms of the verb "be" ).

Because that statement has no operative effect, no legal obligation is created that can be "violated." As stated in conjunction with "shall not be infringed" nothing is "violated" if the federal government has no power over the regulation of arms.

Any other attempt to make the meaning something else fails. FedGov has no power to regulate arms, period. Nothing more.

.

 

[Blues Man]

You do know that every male has to register for the draft at 18 don't you?

If that is not being a member of the militia what is?

If by Draft you mean follow the laws passed by their State in regards to a Regulated Militia where the Federal government has not been granted the power to govern, I guess you could look at it that way.

It wouldn't violate the Constitution ...

And By the way Jackass ... It didn't mention male ... It said citizen.

Well FUCKnut the law states that only males have to register for the draft

 

[Hiryuu]

I chose that particular example because it is truly the exact opposite of what some people would like to interpret. It should also allow the person reading who may be against gun rights, to understand that they not only could be wrong but very well may be dead wrong as far as intent is concerned.

I think I understand what you are saying in the second half, but I still don't know what you mean by this:

You cannot use "the Defense of the Free State" and "Regulated Militia" to violate "Shall not be infringed" in regards to the Federal Government and powers enumerated in the Constitution.

What do you mean by "violate"? I am not following.

A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. That is a statement of fact only. It has no operative, legal effect.
("is" is a "be" verb, so this is a correct conjugation in place of "being". Am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem = forms of the verb "be" ).

Because that statement has no operative effect, no legal obligation is created that can be "violated." As stated in conjunction with "shall not be infringed" nothing is "violated" if the federal government has no power over the regulation of arms.

Any other attempt to make the meaning something else fails. FedGov has no power to regulate arms, period. Nothing more.

.

Violate as in to break or fail to comply with.

And you are correct "regulated militia" has no operative effect, nor legal obligation in the US Constitution, because the Federal Government isn't granted the enumerated to power to regulate the militia (that would still leave it in the purview of the States should they choose to do so under the Tenth Amendment).

That's pretty much why I indicated that to say it is okay to infringe upon the People's right to bear arms (that shall not be infringed), by trying to say that regulating a militia in defense of the Free State, means the Federal Government can infringe upon those rights ... Is a load of bullshit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

After all the deflections, fallacies, and lies from the right, the thread premise remains true and valid: sound, responsible firearm regulatory measures have nothing to do with taking guns from citizens or prohibiting possessing certain firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you are correct "regulated militia" has no operative effect, nor legal obligation in the US Constitution, because the Federal Government isn't granted the enumerated to power to regulate the militia (that would still leave it in the purview of the States should they choose to do so under the Tenth Amendment).

Um...
Article I section 8:
Congress shall have the power...
-To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
-To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[Hiryuu]

Um...
Article I section 8:
Congress shall have the power...
-To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
-To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Then I guess they should get to that.
Although I really wouldn't trust the Congress to go about trying to organize a militia, because they damn sure cannot even balance a bank account.

It still has nothing to do with infringing upon the People's rights to bear arms. unless you want to make the case the People are invading or engaged in insurrection, at which point they would still need a militia to repel.

But hey, if you want the federal government involved, there's not much help for you anyway, and I am pretty sure what you end up with will be garbage.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What is often overlooked are common sense actions that many advocates on both sides of this issue agree on. There are practical steps that both the public and gun owners recognize as necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not own or use them. Tulsi is working to increase school security, shore up and reform our mental healthcare system, close the gun show and online loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and bump stocks, and require background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun. She has cosponsored legislation like the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Act, the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act, the Domestic Violence Loophole Closure Act, the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, the Gun Violence Research Act, and more.

There is at least a 50/50 split on this issue, mainly because there is no way to define a "military-style assault weapon" without banning 75% of all firearms. This is a cosmetic issue at the absolute best.

.

You still on that tired old Assault Rifle kick? There is a way and some states and cities have found a way and made it stick. You are right, assault rifle by broad description catches a large percentage of modern rifles including the venerable Savage Model 60 that most of us learned to shoot on. The Model 60 is the most numerous rifle in the United States (sorry, AR fans). More people own the Savage as well. But the Assault description catches it. So they came up with new wording. "Ar-15 and it's various Clones" does the job. It's very specific and only catches one rifle and it's various copies. And it stuck in the Courts as legal. Oregon just passed an assault ban and it's going to last about 10 minutes in court until they change it to read like the successful states.

The AR-15 just isn't cosmetics. It looks like it does because of function. There has been no attempt at adding anything cosmetic to it. It's downright homely because anything built with strict function in mind will be ugly. It was designed as a battle rifle so that a scare shitless kid of 18 or 19 can operate it, shoot hundreds of bullets quickly while pumped up on heavy adrenaline. There is no weapon that does it better as cheaply as the AR style rifle. No cosmetics, just function.

and the function that the AR system has is the same function that every other system has.

Pulling the trigger of an AR15 produces the same number of shots of any other semi automatic weapon produces with one pull of the trigger.

The only real advantage of the AR system is its customizability. That should not be a bad thing. An AR platform customized and design for a small body woman to use is ideal and more safe. The AR is not a one size fits all. It can be adjusted. Somehow you believe that a bad thing?

It is just a cosmetic issue for you. It looks scary.

I don't know why. You never explained why.

You once said in another thread that banning the AR system ends the gun cult (whatever the **** that means). That is not the ******* job of government. That is, in fact, a first amendment issue.

We are not going to agree to ban the AR system. If anything, we are going to expand rights like we have been doing with concealed carry.

.

I've covered this at least 5 times in detail. You refuse to listen and then you bring up the same BS all over again and expect me to cover it once again. Not this time, cupcake, and the States, Counties and Cities agree with me more each day. If it were just cosmetics, the AR would at least not be so damned homely. It's all function.

 

[Hiryuu]

After all the deflections, fallacies, and lies from the right, the thread premise remains true and valid: sound, responsible firearm regulatory measures have nothing to do with taking guns from citizens or prohibiting possessing certain firearms.

And there is nothing wrong with it as long as it doesn't infringe upon the People's right to bear arms.

 

[Hiryuu]

I've covered this at least 5 times in detail. You refuse to listen and then you bring up the same BS all over again and expect me to cover it once again. Not this time, cupcake, and the States, Counties and Cities agree with me more each day. If it were just cosmetics, the AR would at least not be so damned homely. It's all function.

You can also buy it at several locations or have a custom built version manufactured for a reasonable price at your local gunsmith.

If you have a NICS Number it takes about as long as typing in your number, showing your ID (how unfair to those who cannot get an ID but can go to the gun store) and paying the clerk before you can walk out the door with it.

Sorry bud, your position is not as popular as the firearm you want to infringe upon.
The gunsmith isn't going broke because people agree with you.
In fact it is pretty much the other way around.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

and the function that the AR system has is the same function that every other system has.

Indeed. There is no function difference between these rifles

Or these.

The M14 is actually the MUCH more deadly weapon. It is chambered in 7.62x51 (.308), which does a FUCKLOAD more damage than the 5.56/.223.

This is why we argue that it is PURELY a cosmetic issue, but I have a lingering suspicion that gun grabbers KNOW it will make no difference, which will give them reason to come BACK after an AR ban, and ban anything else that is as capable or better than the AR. It's a bait and switch.

We are not giving an inch on this.

If these grabbers want some sort of licensing and deeper background checks, we demand something in return.

.

Would you stop this crap. The M-14 is a full auto battle rifle. If you are showing a M-16 then the Military changed because the M-16 (also until the A-4 was introduced) was a full auto assault rifle. And the Military had some very good reasons for the change. For instance, the speed of reloading and the number of rounds you could carry. Not to mention the weight. The M-14 went by the way for some pretty damned good reasons or the M-16 replaced it for those same pretty damned good reasons.

The M-16 is still totally function. It's not cosmetics. Not one ounce of design was spent on cosmetics. It is the best at what it does because of it's function. The AR-15 version has the same function when both are fired in the semi auto setting. In fact, in combat, the M-16 is normally fired in semi auto setting. So there is absolutely no appreciable difference between the two. And that means that if you say that one is the best Battle (assault rifle) that is made today for the cost then so is the other one.

Stop with this BS. Fewer and fewer people are buying into to anymore.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've covered this at least 5 times in detail. You refuse to listen and then you bring up the same BS all over again and expect me to cover it once again. Not this time, cupcake, and the States, Counties and Cities agree with me more each day. If it were just cosmetics, the AR would at least not be so damned homely. It's all function.

The fact you repeat your nonsense in no way changes the fact it is nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would you stop this crap. The M-14 is a full auto battle rifle. If you are showing a M-16 then the Military changed because the M-16

Look at you - so impossibly ignorant of the subject matter you don't understand you missed the point completely.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I've covered this at least 5 times in detail. You refuse to listen and then you bring up the same BS all over again and expect me to cover it once again. Not this time, cupcake, and the States, Counties and Cities agree with me more each day. If it were just cosmetics, the AR would at least not be so damned homely. It's all function.

You can also buy it at several locations or have a custom built version manufactured for a reasonable price at your local gunsmith.

If you have a NICS Number it takes about as long as typing in your number, showing your ID (how unfair to those who cannot get an ID but can go to the gun store) and paying the clerk before you can walk out the door with it.

Sorry bud, your position is not as popular as the firearm you want to infringe upon.
The gunsmith isn't going broke because people agree with you.
In fact it is pretty much the other way around.

There are a number of cosmetics available out there including inlaid wooden stocks. What's funny is, even after that, it's still homely as compared to a cusomized Model 700bdl which shoots circles around it.

 

[Hiryuu]

...
Fewer and fewer people are buying into to anymore.

But, more and more people are buying the rifles though.
Sooner or later you goof wads will figure out your efforts have the exact opposite affect.