Democrat platform committee member: no one should have guns...

[GaryDog]

By "arms" they meant muskets.

So there is no freedom of speech on the Internet, radio, or network news?

Speech is regulated. Time, place and manner restrictions everywhere.

And nice work ignoring the rest of my post.

 

[GaryDog]

By "arms" they meant muskets. By "regulated" they didn't mean "**** it, let everyone, everywhere, have a gun."

And yet, pretty much everyone did. Hmmmm....... strange

The constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus. It requires amendments. And sometimes amendments to amendments.

Well, at least you're right about that, so until it's amended guns aren't going anywhere. I guess you'll have to keep that rubber sheet on your bed from all that wetting you're doing at night.

Yes, everyone had guns in 1787. Well....all white, male landowners anyway. Blacks were slaves. Women were baby makers sold to the highest bidder at puberty.

Do you REALLY not understand the issue?

And your last sentence just reveals what you believe this issue to be about: Manhood. You use guns to define yours. If that's the issue, then we have more problems than just guns. We have people like you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

By "arms" they meant muskets.

So there is no freedom of speech on the Internet, radio, or network news?

Speech is regulated. Time, place and manner restrictions everywhere.

And nice work ignoring the rest of my post.

I haven't argued that arms can't be reasonably regulated just as speech is reasonably regulated, but the government cannot legally oppress speech just as they cannot legally oppress gun ownership.

As for the rest of your post, there is nothing to address. If the detractors of Mason were correct they'd have gotten their way 200 years ago. The reality is, those like yourself who wish to oppress the rights of others have been losing this issue. Overall, states and the courts have been lessening restrictions on guns in recent years, not strengthening them.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes, everyone had guns in 1787. Well....all white, male landowners anyway. Blacks were slaves. Women were baby makers sold to the highest bidder at puberty.

Do you REALLY not understand the issue?

Clearly better than you do as I already argued why that argument has no substance. Are blacks not the whole of the people today?

And your last sentence just reveals what you believe this issue to be about: Manhood. You use guns to define yours. If that's the issue, then we have more problems than just guns. We have people like you.

All that is revealed is your own bias and bigotry.

 

[GaryDog]

By "arms" they meant muskets.

So there is no freedom of speech on the Internet, radio, or network news?

Speech is regulated. Time, place and manner restrictions everywhere.

And nice work ignoring the rest of my post.

I haven't argued that arms can't be reasonably regulated just as speech is reasonably regulated, but the government cannot legally oppress speech just as they cannot legally oppress gun ownership.

As for the rest of your post, there is nothing to address. If the detractors of Mason were correct they'd have gotten their way 200 years ago. The reality is, those like yourself who wish to oppress the rights of others have been losing this issue. Overall, states and the courts have been lessening restrictions on guns in recent years, not strengthening them.

WTF are you talking about with "gotten their way"? The 2nd Amendment, for 220 years, was NEVER interpreted as a constitutional right to self-defense using firearms until 2008. Do you know the first thing about constitutional law? Or are you one of these facebook lawyers? The Roberts Court departed from all legal precedent on the 2nd amendment, including most readily accepted meanings regarding "well regulated militia" in accompanying constitutional convention writings. Mason absolutely DID NOT get his way.

You claim I wish to "oppress" the rights of others? I don't think you know what the **** that word means. I'm for 100% background checks, registration, licensing, better training, etc. Just like cars (which, you know, everyone actually needs, unlike guns, which purely exist to replace your flaccid erection). That's not oppression, that's pure common sense.

And you are correct, gun laws have been loosened, but not because of some freedom-fighting ethic among the people; it's because of the gun manufacturers' having the most powerful special interest lobby in Congress. They want the moolah, not the rights for the "whole people". You're just one of their many obedient shills.

 

[GaryDog]

Yes, everyone had guns in 1787. Well....all white, male landowners anyway. Blacks were slaves. Women were baby makers sold to the highest bidder at puberty.

Do you REALLY not understand the issue?

Clearly better than you do as I already argued why that argument has no substance. Are blacks not the whole of the people today?

And your last sentence just reveals what you believe this issue to be about: Manhood. You use guns to define yours. If that's the issue, then we have more problems than just guns. We have people like you.

All that is revealed is your own bias and bigotry.

Your failure to deny this is noted.

 

[martybegan]

There's no question, that if you're anti-gun, you're going to almost certainly be in the Dimocrat party.

There's no question, that if you're a gun nut, you're going to almost certainly be a teabagger.

If the Second Amendment is an important right to you, you likely would be a Republican.
If you believe in losing those rights, you are much more likely to be a Dim.

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

 

[martybegan]

By "arms" they meant muskets.

So there is no freedom of speech on the Internet, radio, or network news?

Speech is regulated. Time, place and manner restrictions everywhere.

And nice work ignoring the rest of my post.

I haven't argued that arms can't be reasonably regulated just as speech is reasonably regulated, but the government cannot legally oppress speech just as they cannot legally oppress gun ownership.

As for the rest of your post, there is nothing to address. If the detractors of Mason were correct they'd have gotten their way 200 years ago. The reality is, those like yourself who wish to oppress the rights of others have been losing this issue. Overall, states and the courts have been lessening restrictions on guns in recent years, not strengthening them.

WTF are you talking about with "gotten their way"? The 2nd Amendment, for 220 years, was NEVER interpreted as a constitutional right to self-defense using firearms until 2008. Do you know the first thing about constitutional law? Or are you one of these facebook lawyers? The Roberts Court departed from all legal precedent on the 2nd amendment, including most readily accepted meanings regarding "well regulated militia" in accompanying constitutional convention writings. Mason absolutely DID NOT get his way.

You claim I wish to "oppress" the rights of others? I don't think you know what the **** that word means. I'm for 100% background checks, registration, licensing, better training, etc. Just like cars (which, you know, everyone actually needs, unlike guns, which purely exist to replace your flaccid erection). That's not oppression, that's pure common sense.

And you are correct, gun laws have been loosened, but not because of some freedom-fighting ethic among the people; it's because of the gun manufacturers' having the most powerful special interest lobby in Congress. They want the moolah, not the rights for the "whole people". You're just one of their many obedient shills.

Short answer. Idiot.

Long answer, Heller was needed to clarify something that until the 1930's or so was an automatic assumption, that a law abiding citizen has a right to defend themselves, and own a firearm. Only since the 70's when handgun bans have been passed has a response been needed, and it too a long time, as court things usually do.

And considering in NYC they can make me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 for a revolver permit for my apartment, I would LOVE if NYC would follow the same rules their DMV uses.

Also, Idiot.

 

[Asclepias]

There's no question, that if you're a gun nut, you're going to almost certainly be a teabagger.

If the Second Amendment is an important right to you, you likely would be a Republican.
If you believe in losing those rights, you are much more likely to be a Dim.

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

There's no question, that if you're a gun nut, you're going to almost certainly be a teabagger.

If the Second Amendment is an important right to you, you likely would be a Republican.
If you believe in losing those rights, you are much more likely to be a Dim.

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

As usual, reading comprehension isn't your strong point.The first part of the amendment grants the States the right to call up militias, i.e. maintain armed forces. The 2nd part makes sure the PEOPLE have the right to arms to make sure the militia can be called up as needed.

You must be blind or stupid. Probably both. There is no second part. Its one sentence dummy. if it wasnt tied to the militia then it would just say everyone can have guns in a separate sentence.

"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 of the people to keep an bear arms allows the militias to be formed. Just because the States don't call on militias anymore doesn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But if you need simpler concepts, I'm sure some company makes a "Constitution for 3 year olds" pop up book.

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

WTF are you talking about with "gotten their way"? The 2nd Amendment, for 220 years, was NEVER interpreted as a constitutional right to self-defense using firearms until 2008. Do you know the first thing about constitutional law? Or are you one of these facebook lawyers? The Roberts Court departed from all legal precedent on the 2nd amendment, including most readily accepted meanings regarding "well regulated militia" in accompanying constitutional convention writings. Mason absolutely DID NOT get his way.

Of course, he didn't. That's why virtually every household in the country in his day had one or more guns in them. That's why even 50 years ago more households had guns in them, because, you know, Mason was wrong. You really want to keep digging that hole?

You claim I wish to "oppress" the rights of others? I don't think you know what the **** that word means. I'm for 100% background checks, registration, licensing, better training, etc.

There is no need for 100% background checks, registration, licensing, etc. The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of RIGHTS. Rights being the operative word. I don't think you know what the **** THAT word means.

Just like cars (which, you know, everyone actually needs, unlike guns)

Show me where the right to own a car is in the Constitution and we'll talk.

which purely exist to replace your flaccid erection.

Don't project your personal problems on to the rest of us. Talk to your doctor about that.

That's not oppression, that's pure common sense.

It's your opinion and nothing more.

And you are correct, gun laws have been loosened, but not because of some freedom-fighting ethic among the people; it's because of the gun manufacturers' having the most powerful special interest lobby in Congress. They want the moolah, not the rights for the "whole people". You're just one of their many obedient shills.

Uh-huh....suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure..........

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes, everyone had guns in 1787. Well....all white, male landowners anyway. Blacks were slaves. Women were baby makers sold to the highest bidder at puberty.

Do you REALLY not understand the issue?

Clearly better than you do as I already argued why that argument has no substance. Are blacks not the whole of the people today?

And your last sentence just reveals what you believe this issue to be about: Manhood. You use guns to define yours. If that's the issue, then we have more problems than just guns. We have people like you.

All that is revealed is your own bias and bigotry.

Your failure to deny this is noted.

I did not deny your bias and bigotry. I affirmed it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Guns are a state right??? Is free speech a state right

You should research that for yourself unless you cant read. I'll give you a tip though. There is no mention of the word "state" in that amendment.

"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."

Hey, maybe it's a right that applies to "Beings"?

That isnt the first amendment goofy. You asked about free speech.

So if its up to the States why does SCOTUS feel they have to weigh in?

Please elaborate. You are obviously confused. I will help you.

LOL that's funny

 

[Asclepias]

You should research that for yourself unless you cant read. I'll give you a tip though. There is no mention of the word "state" in that amendment.

"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."

Hey, maybe it's a right that applies to "Beings"?

That isnt the first amendment goofy. You asked about free speech.

So if its up to the States why does SCOTUS feel they have to weigh in?

Please elaborate. You are obviously confused. I will help you.

LOL that's funny

Actually its kinda sad youre so confused but OK.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am good with that. If we ban guns, well, somebody will put poison in Tylenol or knife their kids or use a fertilizer bomb or crash an airplane or just use their fist and beat someone death. But, banning firearms is a first step. The rest, well, supporting firearms wont help, either.

So you would like to see the people even more defenseless against the perpetrators of the crimes you listed than they (we) already are?

Why?

Never mind.

It will never happen.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Who sold those slaves to Arab traders ?

No one sold them. The Arabs kidnapped them or whites paid sell out and even mulatto Africans to capture them.

One African tribe conquering another and sellling them to Arab traders happened quiete often. Its called history

No. It didnt happen quite often but keep telling yourself that. The few that did it were sell outs like I pointed out.

The Truth about Slavery

Sorry but your link is not credible.

So you quote a book and its OK but my reference is not credible? Typical liberal garbage "If you don't believe the way I do you are wrong".

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The 2nd doesnt really give you the right to have a gun. It only says you should have one if you are part of a militia.

We are all the militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The "Whole people" to those guys meant white land-owners.

Try again.

And "Freedom of the press" to those guys meant printed newspaper.

Try again.

By "arms" they meant muskets. By "regulated" they didn't mean "**** it, let everyone, everywhere, have a gun."

Oh, and by "three-fifths" they were referring to the worth of a black person's representation to that of a white person's.

The constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus. It requires amendments. And sometimes amendments to amendments.

There were cannons and you should also look up the Puckle gun it was a crew served weapon and the first to be called a machine gun invented in 1718. The framers of the Constitution knew there would be advances in firearms if they had been worried about it they would have written restrictions they did not. No where in the second amendment does it say regulate the firearms of the people.

 

[Asclepias]

Obviously you dont know what you are talking about. Miiitias can be formed and supplied by the government. You only have a right to have a gun if you are called upon by the state.

Hmmmm, so how is it that I bought the two I have. Boy, that's a real head scratcher.

Because its not illegal to by those two. I think you miss the point that you dont have a right to have a gun unless you are part of the militia. The state can supply the guns for you should the need arise for a militia.

 

[Yarddog]

Hey Asseclipias, what was the black man's name that the Chinese stole the first guns (fire lances) from ?

Who brought guns, disease and genocide to america, wiped out a people already here and eslaved another group of people for centuries?

Hey Asseclipias, what was the black man's name that the Chinese stole the first guns (fire lances) from ?

Who brought guns, disease and genocide to america, wiped out a people already here and eslaved another group of people for centuries?

The Aztecs, the Inca ...the northern indian tribes........and then the Europeans and Africans sent African slaves to the new wolrd.....

But only the white people meant it in a bad way, none of the other people thought they were superior to their slaves you see, besides , those slave holders are untraceable now because they're blacks and browns, its easy to find the white slavers ,,ahhhh cause their all still white. and rich. didnt you get that memo?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

By "arms" they meant muskets.

So there is no freedom of speech on the Internet, radio, or network news?

Speech is regulated. Time, place and manner restrictions everywhere.

And nice work ignoring the rest of my post.

I haven't argued that arms can't be reasonably regulated just as speech is reasonably regulated, but the government cannot legally oppress speech just as they cannot legally oppress gun ownership.

As for the rest of your post, there is nothing to address. If the detractors of Mason were correct they'd have gotten their way 200 years ago. The reality is, those like yourself who wish to oppress the rights of others have been losing this issue. Overall, states and the courts have been lessening restrictions on guns in recent years, not strengthening them.

WTF are you talking about with "gotten their way"? The 2nd Amendment, for 220 years, was NEVER interpreted as a constitutional right to self-defense using firearms until 2008. Do you know the first thing about constitutional law? Or are you one of these facebook lawyers? The Roberts Court departed from all legal precedent on the 2nd amendment, including most readily accepted meanings regarding "well regulated militia" in accompanying constitutional convention writings. Mason absolutely DID NOT get his way.

You claim I wish to "oppress" the rights of others? I don't think you know what the **** that word means. I'm for 100% background checks, registration, licensing, better training, etc. Just like cars (which, you know, everyone actually needs, unlike guns, which purely exist to replace your flaccid erection). That's not oppression, that's pure common sense.

And you are correct, gun laws have been loosened, but not because of some freedom-fighting ethic among the people; it's because of the gun manufacturers' having the most powerful special interest lobby in Congress. They want the moolah, not the rights for the "whole people". You're just one of their many obedient shills.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764