Gun control? Leave the 2nd amendment out of it!

[M14 Shooter]

A USMB member who will remain nameless (member # 20297) claims that is it impossible to have an honest, open debate about gun control because those on the pro-gun side bring up the 2nd amendment, in a defacto appeal to authority.

George Zimmerman back in the news another shooting incident US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

To the thinking mind this is, of course, preposterous, as it is impossible to disconnect the 2nd Amendment from the right of the people to keep and bear arms; as restrictions on the law abiding necessarily involves restricting their right to keep and bear arms, consideration of the 2nd amendment is a necessary part of any open and honest conversation about gun control.

IMHO, trying to divorce the 2nd from the discussion on gun control is little more than an admission that gun control, or at least the kinds of gun control most commonly discussed, do indeed violate the 2nd, leaving little choice but to try to ignore it in order for it to have any chance to pass into law.

Opinions?

Please do try to respond with something not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one? Really?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well regulated

 

[2aguy]

I didn't want to post to give the grabbers a chance.....I know the 2nd amendment is simply the actual Right, written down and that it already exists without the Constitution...but I post information to inform about the truth and reality of guns...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I didn't want to post to give the grabbers a chance.....I know the 2nd amendment is simply the actual Right, written down and that it already exists without the Constitution...but I post information to inform about the truth and reality of guns...

This right here.

The answer to that garbage is that the Second Amendment only enumerates a pre-existing right. So they'd actually have to demand the the Ninth Amendment, and therefore the ENTIRE ENLIGHTENMENT be ignored (since the Ninth Amendment is the spirit of the entire Enlightenment).

So their argument is equivalent to: "Leave the Enlightenment out of this debate!"

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Well regulated

Good lie. How many times do I have to correct you and yet you repeat the lie.

Even the SCOTUS recognizes "well regulated" being used in the archaic form like British Regulars and a well-regulated clock (in good order, disciplined).

Why do you keep repeating that lie?

Funny, I hit "show ignored content" in order to see your post. Perhaps you knew I had you on ignore so you thought it was safe to spew that shit again?

This is why you're on ignore. And I'm not going to see your reply.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well regulated

Good lie. How many times do I have to you correct, and yet you repeat the lie.

Even the SCOTUS recognizes "well regulated" being used in the archaic form like British Regulars and a well-regulated clock (in good order, disciplined).

Why do you keep repeating that lie?

Funny, I hit "show ignored content" in order to see your post. Perhaps you knew I had you on ignore so you thought it was safe to spew that shit again?

Cool go buy a couple nukes. That should be fine since arms don't need to be regulated here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well regulated

Meaningless post, brought to us by someone who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[2aguy]

Well regulated

Meaningless post, brought to us by someone who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

And to reinforce your point...the usual anti-gun nuts haven't posted here.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well regulated

Good lie. How many times do I have to you correct, and yet you repeat the lie.

Even the SCOTUS recognizes "well regulated" being used in the archaic form like British Regulars and a well-regulated clock (in good order, disciplined).

Why do you keep repeating that lie?

Funny, I hit "show ignored content" in order to see your post. Perhaps you knew I had you on ignore so you thought it was safe to spew that shit again?

Cool go buy a couple nukes. That should be fine since arms don't need to be regulated here.

Another meaningless post, brought to us by someone who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Disagree?

How about honestly addressing the issue brought forth in the OP?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well regulated

Meaningless post, brought to us by someone who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

And to reinforce your point...the usual anti-gun nuts haven't posted here.....

Of course not -- even the most loony of anti-gun loons can only stand so much embarrassment..

 

[2aguy]

Well regulated

Meaningless post, brought to us by someone who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

And to reinforce your point...the usual anti-gun nuts haven't posted here.....

Of course not -- even the most loony of anti-gun loons can only stand so much embarrassment..

You would think that at a minimum they would post just to accuse us of the penis envy thing...and the shooting minority thing.....at a minimum......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still no one. Huh.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Still no one. Huh.

Seeing how bad we kick their asses over and over again, they're afraid to come back.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No one?

You want progressives to argue based on the text of an enlightenment document? Progressives can never argue with the rigid confines of a piece of enlightenment text. Progressives are the Counter-Enlightenment.

Lord Filmer's Patriarcha always comes to mind when Progressives are the first ones to think they have this new and modern concept of big central government, meanwhile we have plenty of 15th 16th and 17th century texts advocating for Big Central Government under the Crown. They want to progress backwards to feudalism (at worst) or monarchy (at best).

We should rename "Progressives" to "Regressives."

That should be their slogan:
"Progressing Back to Feudalism"