CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[Humorme]

Ghost of a Rider, post: 19418119

on't be ridiculous. 1.) There is no militia until the government calls for one. If they do, those who are willing volunteer.

(1) I'm not being rediculous. Assault rifle advocates here have declared themselves to be, at present, in the phony, fake, make-believe, Amendment Two Militia and cite that duty, as their necessity to play with military looking assault rifles.

I appreciate your response. Dont get much thoughtful replies from other assault rifle defenders. However, your argument is a very weak justification for the current legalized status of manufacturing and sale of assault rifles That is because you just wrote 'There is no militia until the government calls for one" which I must assume you mean the Federal Governnent and its massive apparatus of standing Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and domestic law enforcement.

Under your militia scenario, if we apply the current polling where two thirds of US citizens want assault rifles banned, there apparently is no reason not to ban them. Do you agree. If not why not.

For the sake of discussion, let's keep sticking strictly to the Second Amendment language calling for a well regulated militia. The assault rifle ban, most Americans want, fits very well under that language and your interpretation that the Federal Government is the regulator.

All of this was asked and answered in posts #266 and #276

 

[9thIDdoc]

Ridgerunner, post: 19419752

This post may well be the most accurate and well positioned in almost 300 posts

If a 12 Shotgun is so grea for self defense why the uproar over the semi automatic assault rifle ban. The poster does not address that.? Nor does he address tacit acceptance of the fully automatic firearm bans in place,

That would be because poster gets tired of repeating himself and others over and over.
1. Fully automatic actual assault rifles are not banned. They are however very highly regulated and very very expensive and only the wealthy can afford their care and feeding. The required background investigation takes months maybe years and the person's past must be absolutely spotless (as everyone agrees it should be) or they are turned down. Easier to think of them as banned.
2. There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle. nor is there such a thing as a assault weapon.
3. Semi-auto rifles fire one time per pull of the trigger. That is why they are called semi-automatic. While an assault rifle is capable of firing full-auto (multiple times or indefinitely) for each pull of the trigger. The two terms are used to define two different types of rifle.which is why they can't be both. There are all kinds of different styles of semi-auto rifles to suit several purposes and there are are also semi-auto pistols and shotguns.
4. It seems that no two wannabe gun grabbers define what they want to ban the same way and precise definitions are vital with the force of laws. Many of the past proposed laws would have effectively outlawed all semi-auto weapons all sorts (including pistols and shotguns)including hunting and military weapons that have been cherished since early last century and bear not the slightest resemblance to the dreaded assault rifle.
We put up with ten years of "assault weapon ban" that didn't accomplish a thing except to irritate law-abiding American citizens. Enough is enough.

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[Humorme]

Ridgerunner, post: 19419752

This post may well be the most accurate and well positioned in almost 300 posts

If a 12 Shotgun is so grea for self defense why the uproar over the semi automatic assault rifle ban. The poster does not address that.? Nor does he address tacit acceptance of the fully automatic firearm bans in place,

That would be because poster gets tired of repeating himself and others over and over.
1. Fully automatic actual assault rifles are not banned. They are however very highly regulated and very very expensive and only the wealthy can afford their care and feeding. The required background investigation takes months maybe years and the person's past must be absolutely spotless (as everyone agrees it should be) or they are turned down. Easier to think of them as banned.
2. There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle. nor is there such a thing as a assault weapon.
3. Semi-auto rifles fire one time per pull of the trigger. That is why they are called semi-automatic. While an assault rifle is capable of firing full-auto (multiple times or indefinitely) for each pull of the trigger. The two terms are used to define two different types of rifle.which is why they can't be both. There are all kinds of different styles of semi-auto rifles to suit several purposes and there are are also semi-auto pistols and shotguns.
4. It seems that no two wannabe gun grabbers define what they want to ban the same way and precise definitions are vital with the force of laws. Many of the past proposed laws would have effectively outlawed all semi-auto weapons all sorts (including pistols and shotguns)including hunting and military weapons that have been cherished since early last century and bear not the slightest resemblance to the dreaded assault rifle.
We put up with ten years of "assault weapon ban" that didn't accomplish a thing except to irritate law-abiding American citizens. Enough is enough.

When you get tired of the B.S. then wake up and go on the offense. Put some proposals on the table that will affect gun violence without gun control and the left will leave you alone.

The defensive war annoys the Hell out of everybody.

 

[SingleVoyce]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

I can't discern your position on the essential question based on all that. Do you actually believe that there should be no restrictions at all on private ownership of weapons?

 

[Humorme]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

I can't discern your position on the essential question based on all that. Do you actually believe that there should be no restrictions at all on private ownership of weapons?

What do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Don't you think it is folly to trust a government that don't trust you?

The game is always the same. There ought to be "reasonable" gun restrictions, right? The government outlawed the public's ability to convert semi-auto to full auto. Do you know how many people were killed by a legally held full auto? Exactly 0, zilch, nobody, not a soul.

The government outlawed the importation of WWII firearms that are normally sold to the public by the government through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. What's so reasonable about that?

We were told how "evil" the AK was, so George Bush outlawed the imports of foreign semi-automatics. How "reasonable" did that turn out for you?

You tried the Assault Weapon Ban and it didn't work.

There are over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city rules, statutes, ordinances, edicts, regulations, case precedents, etc. governing firearms. When is enough gun control "reasonable?"

The only thing that has been done is that every time something happens, they blame the damn guns. How come you aren't mad that the laws would have prevented the last few mass shootings IF the government had done their job? And did you advocate that any of those who ignored the reports and the warning signs should be held accountable? Don't you think the FBI should find out who dropped the ball and put them in prison? Aren't you embarrassed that a LEO showed up on the Lakeland scene, was too cowardly to stop the shooter, and now gets to retire and draw a pension?

How can you ethically pose such a question to me when America has NO kind of policy to help the mentally ill? Most mentally ill people are not treated; they are put in prisons. We have TEN TIMES more mentally ill people in prison than there are being treated. It's not the freaking guns fault that we don't deal with people we know, for a fact, pose a threat to the public.

US prisons hold 10 times more mentally ill people than state hospitals – report

They've gone as far as they can go with gun control. This, for me, IS the line in the sand. The anti-gun lobby has ignored me and as recent as a week before that shooting, I was active in trying to get people to lobby Congress against handing out SSRIs like candy (most mass shooters have used SSRIs.) Where the Hell were you? And, no, I don't blame just the SSRIs, but they are instrumental in tracking down those who are most likely to commit an act of violence.

You're going to have to come with a new strategy. I'm not playing games by answering rhetorical questions asked by people who were absent while I was trying to save lives.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Ghost of a Rider, post: 19418119

on't be ridiculous. 1.) There is no militia until the government calls for one. If they do, those who are willing volunteer.

(1) I'm not being rediculous. Assault rifle advocates here have declared themselves to be, at present, in the phony, fake, make-believe, Amendment Two Militia and cite that duty, as their necessity to play with military looking assault rifles.

I can't speak for others but there is no militia until one is called up. And so what if people want to play with "military looking" assault rifles? As long as they're not shooting people with them, what is that to you or me?

I bought an air rifle years ago that looked just like an M16 and they still have models today that look even more like M16s than the one I had. If I took one of these out in public people would panic and run. So, as long as they're not actual fully automatic military assault rifles, what difference does it make?

I appreciate your response. Dont get much thoughtful replies from other assault rifle defenders. However, your argument is a very weak justification for the current legalized status of manufacturing and sale of assault rifles That is because you just wrote 'There is no militia until the government calls for one" which I must assume you mean the Federal Governnent and its massive apparatus of standing Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and domestic law enforcement.

It's highly unlikely that a militia would be called up and we could quibble all day long about the definition of the word or the need for one but at the end of the day, the 2nd Amendment states clearly and with no ambiguity or possibility of other interpretations that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Under your militia scenario, if we apply the current polling where two thirds of US citizens want assault rifles banned, there apparently is no reason not to ban them. Do you agree. If not why not.

I don't agree and I'll tell you why: I can't take their protestations too seriously when I consider that many of this same two thirds would say that I am racist simply by virtue of my being white.
Many of these same people would say it's okay for a man to go into a woman's restroom simply because he hasn't been able to figure out his gender after twenty something years and says he identifies as female.
Many of these same people would say that I am racist for wanting stronger measures to prevent illegal immigration even though every country on the planet has immigration laws and they enforce them.
Many of these same people would say that there is system-wide racism in the law enforcement community against blacks and that officers deliberately gun for young black men when the numbers simply don't support that idea.
Many of these same people are ignorant to the fact that hundreds of children are killed every year in motor vehicle accidents due to being unrestrained as is required by law and even if they are aware of it, have nothing to say about it (what's ironic is that even more are killed that are restrained).
Many of these same people...well, you get the idea.

People are short sighted by nature and lack critical thinking skills so they often fail to see the bigger picture. As a result of these two things, they react strictly with emotions when something like this happens. If you look at this and other mass shootings logically and with just a smidgen of knowledge of firearms, you realize that, with enough magazines, Cruz could have accomplished the same thing with a semi-automatic pistol. And given the fact that the cowardly deputies refused to go in and stop him, he might have accomplished the same thing with a knife.

On top of all that, I don't agree that all gun owners (or the NRA) should be penalized because of the actions of a few. By the same principle, we should ban cars because a few drivers are reckless and irresponsible and cause accidents or commit hit and runs. Or we should ban knives because a few stab people to death (1604 deaths by stabbing in 2016 alone btw). Or we should ban baseball bats and hammers and other blunt objects and even hands and feet because a few choose to beat people to death (the latest statistics from 2011 cite 496 murders by blunt objects and 726 by hands and/or feet for that year).

So unless the anti-assault weapon people are willing to look at human fatalities logically and suggest actions or bans on other types of weapons and other types of deaths as well, I can't take them very seriously.

 

[SingleVoyce]

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

I can't discern your position on the essential question based on all that. Do you actually believe that there should be no restrictions at all on private ownership of weapons?

What do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Don't you think it is folly to trust a government that don't trust you?

The game is always the same. There ought to be "reasonable" gun restrictions, right? The government outlawed the public's ability to convert semi-auto to full auto. Do you know how many people were killed by a legally held full auto? Exactly 0, zilch, nobody, not a soul.

The government outlawed the importation of WWII firearms that are normally sold to the public by the government through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. What's so reasonable about that?

We were told how "evil" the AK was, so George Bush outlawed the imports of foreign semi-automatics. How "reasonable" did that turn out for you?

You tried the Assault Weapon Ban and it didn't work.

There are over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city rules, statutes, ordinances, edicts, regulations, case precedents, etc. governing firearms. When is enough gun control "reasonable?"

The only thing that has been done is that every time something happens, they blame the damn guns. How come you aren't mad that the laws would have prevented the last few mass shootings IF the government had done their job? And did you advocate that any of those who ignored the reports and the warning signs should be held accountable? Don't you think the FBI should find out who dropped the ball and put them in prison? Aren't you embarrassed that a LEO showed up on the Lakeland scene, was too cowardly to stop the shooter, and now gets to retire and draw a pension?

How can you ethically pose such a question to me when America has NO kind of policy to help the mentally ill? Most mentally ill people are not treated; they are put in prisons. We have TEN TIMES more mentally ill people in prison than there are being treated. It's not the freaking guns fault that we don't deal with people we know, for a fact, pose a threat to the public.

US prisons hold 10 times more mentally ill people than state hospitals – report

They've gone as far as they can go with gun control. This, for me, IS the line in the sand. The anti-gun lobby has ignored me and as recent as a week before that shooting, I was active in trying to get people to lobby Congress against handing out SSRIs like candy (most mass shooters have used SSRIs.) Where the Hell were you? And, no, I don't blame just the SSRIs, but they are instrumental in tracking down those who are most likely to commit an act of violence.

You're going to have to come with a new strategy. I'm not playing games by answering rhetorical questions asked by people who were absent while I was trying to save lives.

The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias. It was the product of a discussion about the rights of the states versus the rights of the federal government and the states rights contingent wanted to make sure that the states had the capability to resist tyranny if necessary. Since that time, it's morphed into something entirely different but that's how our system works.

I don't trust the federal government at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

This is not a "rhetorical" question at all. It's very simple. Do you believe that governmental entities at all levels should not be allowed to ban the private ownership of any weapon?

 

[Humorme]

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

I can't discern your position on the essential question based on all that. Do you actually believe that there should be no restrictions at all on private ownership of weapons?

What do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Don't you think it is folly to trust a government that don't trust you?

The game is always the same. There ought to be "reasonable" gun restrictions, right? The government outlawed the public's ability to convert semi-auto to full auto. Do you know how many people were killed by a legally held full auto? Exactly 0, zilch, nobody, not a soul.

The government outlawed the importation of WWII firearms that are normally sold to the public by the government through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. What's so reasonable about that?

We were told how "evil" the AK was, so George Bush outlawed the imports of foreign semi-automatics. How "reasonable" did that turn out for you?

You tried the Assault Weapon Ban and it didn't work.

There are over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city rules, statutes, ordinances, edicts, regulations, case precedents, etc. governing firearms. When is enough gun control "reasonable?"

The only thing that has been done is that every time something happens, they blame the damn guns. How come you aren't mad that the laws would have prevented the last few mass shootings IF the government had done their job? And did you advocate that any of those who ignored the reports and the warning signs should be held accountable? Don't you think the FBI should find out who dropped the ball and put them in prison? Aren't you embarrassed that a LEO showed up on the Lakeland scene, was too cowardly to stop the shooter, and now gets to retire and draw a pension?

How can you ethically pose such a question to me when America has NO kind of policy to help the mentally ill? Most mentally ill people are not treated; they are put in prisons. We have TEN TIMES more mentally ill people in prison than there are being treated. It's not the freaking guns fault that we don't deal with people we know, for a fact, pose a threat to the public.

US prisons hold 10 times more mentally ill people than state hospitals – report

They've gone as far as they can go with gun control. This, for me, IS the line in the sand. The anti-gun lobby has ignored me and as recent as a week before that shooting, I was active in trying to get people to lobby Congress against handing out SSRIs like candy (most mass shooters have used SSRIs.) Where the Hell were you? And, no, I don't blame just the SSRIs, but they are instrumental in tracking down those who are most likely to commit an act of violence.

You're going to have to come with a new strategy. I'm not playing games by answering rhetorical questions asked by people who were absent while I was trying to save lives.

The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias. It was the product of a discussion about the rights of the states versus the rights of the federal government and the states rights contingent wanted to make sure that the states had the capability to resist tyranny if necessary. Since that time, it's morphed into something entirely different but that's how our system works.

I don't trust the federal government at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

This is not a "rhetorical" question at all. It's very simple. Do you believe that governmental entities at all levels should not be allowed to ban the private ownership of any weapon?

If you start out with a false premise, like that have you stopped beating your wife variety of questions, you will get no traction here. I dismantled that argument you made in a rather long post on this thread. Shall I repeat it? Post # 306 completely destroys the misinformation you're posting.

Let's start by repeating the answer to your FIRST error:



Once you've done that go back to my long reply that dismantles your argument.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Rights of the people. Once you understand that (and not before) can your question be dealt with honestly.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, Delta responds to the Georgia Legislature, which has decided to reward the NRA and punish Delta:

"Our values are not for sale"

YES!!!!!

Delta Just Doubled Down on Its Decision to Cut Ties With the NRA

 

[Humorme]

So, Delta responds to the Georgia Legislature, which has decided to reward the NRA and punish Delta:

"Our values are not for sale"

YES!!!!!

Delta Just Doubled Down on Its Decision to Cut Ties With the NRA

And I won't be flying Delta any longer.

By the way, I went to the airport a few weeks ago and got a ticket to Minneapolis. I told the clerk to send my first bag to Miami and the other bag to Memphis. She said they couldn't do that. I replied, "You did it last week and I didn't even ask you to."

That name Delta is actually an acronym. It means Don't Expect Luggage To Arrive.

If you're flying, Delta also means Don't Ever Leave The Airport.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Great. I was never a big fan of Delta anyway.
Nice to know that Delta is so wealthy they can afford to alienate prospective Passengers
Reaction?:

NRA Meets With Trump- Gun Control Now Off the Table

 

[SingleVoyce]

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

I can't discern your position on the essential question based on all that. Do you actually believe that there should be no restrictions at all on private ownership of weapons?

What do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Don't you think it is folly to trust a government that don't trust you?

The game is always the same. There ought to be "reasonable" gun restrictions, right? The government outlawed the public's ability to convert semi-auto to full auto. Do you know how many people were killed by a legally held full auto? Exactly 0, zilch, nobody, not a soul.

The government outlawed the importation of WWII firearms that are normally sold to the public by the government through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. What's so reasonable about that?

We were told how "evil" the AK was, so George Bush outlawed the imports of foreign semi-automatics. How "reasonable" did that turn out for you?

You tried the Assault Weapon Ban and it didn't work.

There are over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city rules, statutes, ordinances, edicts, regulations, case precedents, etc. governing firearms. When is enough gun control "reasonable?"

The only thing that has been done is that every time something happens, they blame the damn guns. How come you aren't mad that the laws would have prevented the last few mass shootings IF the government had done their job? And did you advocate that any of those who ignored the reports and the warning signs should be held accountable? Don't you think the FBI should find out who dropped the ball and put them in prison? Aren't you embarrassed that a LEO showed up on the Lakeland scene, was too cowardly to stop the shooter, and now gets to retire and draw a pension?

How can you ethically pose such a question to me when America has NO kind of policy to help the mentally ill? Most mentally ill people are not treated; they are put in prisons. We have TEN TIMES more mentally ill people in prison than there are being treated. It's not the freaking guns fault that we don't deal with people we know, for a fact, pose a threat to the public.

US prisons hold 10 times more mentally ill people than state hospitals – report

They've gone as far as they can go with gun control. This, for me, IS the line in the sand. The anti-gun lobby has ignored me and as recent as a week before that shooting, I was active in trying to get people to lobby Congress against handing out SSRIs like candy (most mass shooters have used SSRIs.) Where the Hell were you? And, no, I don't blame just the SSRIs, but they are instrumental in tracking down those who are most likely to commit an act of violence.

You're going to have to come with a new strategy. I'm not playing games by answering rhetorical questions asked by people who were absent while I was trying to save lives.

The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias. It was the product of a discussion about the rights of the states versus the rights of the federal government and the states rights contingent wanted to make sure that the states had the capability to resist tyranny if necessary. Since that time, it's morphed into something entirely different but that's how our system works.

I don't trust the federal government at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

This is not a "rhetorical" question at all. It's very simple. Do you believe that governmental entities at all levels should not be allowed to ban the private ownership of any weapon?

If you start out with a false premise, like that have you stopped beating your wife variety of questions, you will get no traction here. I dismantled that argument you made in a rather long post on this thread. Shall I repeat it? Post # 306 completely destroys the misinformation you're posting.

Let's start by repeating the answer to your FIRST error:



Once you've done that go back to my long reply that dismantles your argument.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Rights of the people. Once you understand that (and not before) can your question be dealt with honestly.

I understand the Bill of Rights much better than you do. That is obvious. Your refusal to answer a very simple question and to try and divert the discussion elsewhere indicates that you have no intention of participating in a rational discussion.

You asked what the purpose of the second amendment WAS. The intent of the writers in the 18th century was clear. The Supreme Court has chosen to reinterpret it in the 21st century so fine. That's the interpretation we will go with today. If you really want to understand the original intent of the second amendment, you should read the text of discussions about it during the ratification process. It is very obvious what they were trying to do and the meaning of "bear arms" was very clear. However, that is not the subject I was trying to get you to discuss in a rational manner. I don't harbor any hope now that you will ever do so.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

I can't discern your position on the essential question based on all that. Do you actually believe that there should be no restrictions at all on private ownership of weapons?

What do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

Don't you think it is folly to trust a government that don't trust you?

The game is always the same. There ought to be "reasonable" gun restrictions, right? The government outlawed the public's ability to convert semi-auto to full auto. Do you know how many people were killed by a legally held full auto? Exactly 0, zilch, nobody, not a soul.

The government outlawed the importation of WWII firearms that are normally sold to the public by the government through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. What's so reasonable about that?

We were told how "evil" the AK was, so George Bush outlawed the imports of foreign semi-automatics. How "reasonable" did that turn out for you?

You tried the Assault Weapon Ban and it didn't work.

There are over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city rules, statutes, ordinances, edicts, regulations, case precedents, etc. governing firearms. When is enough gun control "reasonable?"

The only thing that has been done is that every time something happens, they blame the damn guns. How come you aren't mad that the laws would have prevented the last few mass shootings IF the government had done their job? And did you advocate that any of those who ignored the reports and the warning signs should be held accountable? Don't you think the FBI should find out who dropped the ball and put them in prison? Aren't you embarrassed that a LEO showed up on the Lakeland scene, was too cowardly to stop the shooter, and now gets to retire and draw a pension?

How can you ethically pose such a question to me when America has NO kind of policy to help the mentally ill? Most mentally ill people are not treated; they are put in prisons. We have TEN TIMES more mentally ill people in prison than there are being treated. It's not the freaking guns fault that we don't deal with people we know, for a fact, pose a threat to the public.

US prisons hold 10 times more mentally ill people than state hospitals – report

They've gone as far as they can go with gun control. This, for me, IS the line in the sand. The anti-gun lobby has ignored me and as recent as a week before that shooting, I was active in trying to get people to lobby Congress against handing out SSRIs like candy (most mass shooters have used SSRIs.) Where the Hell were you? And, no, I don't blame just the SSRIs, but they are instrumental in tracking down those who are most likely to commit an act of violence.

You're going to have to come with a new strategy. I'm not playing games by answering rhetorical questions asked by people who were absent while I was trying to save lives.

The purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias. It was the product of a discussion about the rights of the states versus the rights of the federal government and the states rights contingent wanted to make sure that the states had the capability to resist tyranny if necessary. Since that time, it's morphed into something entirely different but that's how our system works.

I don't trust the federal government at all. I don't know where you got that idea.

This is not a "rhetorical" question at all. It's very simple. Do you believe that governmental entities at all levels should not be allowed to ban the private ownership of any weapon?

If you start out with a false premise, like that have you stopped beating your wife variety of questions, you will get no traction here. I dismantled that argument you made in a rather long post on this thread. Shall I repeat it? Post # 306 completely destroys the misinformation you're posting.

Let's start by repeating the answer to your FIRST error:



Once you've done that go back to my long reply that dismantles your argument.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Rights of the people. Once you understand that (and not before) can your question be dealt with honestly.

I understand the Bill of Rights much better than you do. That is obvious. Your refusal to answer a very simple question and to try and divert the discussion elsewhere indicates that you have no intention of participating in a rational discussion.

You asked what the purpose of the second amendment WAS. The intent of the writers in the 18th century was clear. The Supreme Court has chosen to reinterpret it in the 21st century so fine. That's the interpretation we will go with today. If you really want to understand the original intent of the second amendment, you should read the text of discussions about it during the ratification process. It is very obvious what they were trying to do and the meaning of "bear arms" was very clear. However, that is not the subject I was trying to get you to discuss in a rational manner. I don't harbor any hope now that you will ever do so.

If it was intended to be just about State militias I don't the they would have used the phrase "...Right of The People" The militias that had recently fought the British were certainly not all State militias.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

2.) Not every gun owner is or will be in the militia. You can't be so myopic as to believe that.)

I have not presented an argument that presumes such a belief.

You said: "That's obvious. I'm trying to find who is supposed to be regulating our so called 'citizen soldiers' since one of them just shot up a high school and killed seventeen citizen non-soldiers."

If you understand that not every gun owner would be in the militia then why did you cite Cruz as one of the citizen soldiers?

I assume that those in need of collecting, owning, stockpiling and playing with legally sold ''assault rifles' for any reason are more inclined than most other type of gun owners, to fancy themselves as part of some Amendment Two sons of liberty militia mania.

You may be right about that but even if you are, as long as they're not using these weapons to kill people, what difference does it make? These people are entitled to their opinions and conspiracy theories and having AR-15s doesn't change that. What's more, not having AR-15s doesn't change that either.

They do have 'assault rifle' ownership in common with the Parkland High shooter. There is that connection which brings me to my point that the Second Amendment most certainly does not interfere with the majority of America's citizens right to ban 'assault rifles' if that can be politically achieved.

A former coworker and friend of mine likes to make knives and has a knife collection. Should he have his collection confiscated because some other A-hole decided to stab someone? Should I have my truck taken away if some idiot drives drunk and kills someone?

This is precisely what you and others are suggesting; that we punish all AR-15 and semi-automatic weapon owners for the sins of a few. Conservatives like myself understand that the few who do wrong should be held accountable for their own actions, not that the many should be held accountable for the actions of a few.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

If you understand that not every gun owner would be in the militia then why did you cite Cruz as one of the citizen soldiers?

That's simple. My criteria for militia leaning gun owners are only those who purchase and own at least one assault rifle. Cruz was also attracted to the legal weapon design for killing humans. You do know all guns are not replica assault rifles. Hunters that own shotguns and rifles would be gun owners not necessarily likely to pretend they are part of some kind of militia. So yes I understand that every gun owner would not be inclined to join some whacko militia.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If you understand that not every gun owner would be in the militia then why did you cite Cruz as one of the citizen soldiers?

That's simple. My criteria for militia leaning gun owners are only those who purchase and own at least one assault rifle.

If that is your criteria for militia leaning gun owners then it is way oversimplified and you are woefully misinformed. The average AR-15 and semi-auto rifle owner is just someone who is into hunting and sport shooting. The ones who talk about militias are relatively few.

Cruz was also attracted to the legal weapon design for killing humans. You do know all guns are not replica assault rifles. Hunters that own shotguns and rifles would be gun owners not necessarily likely to pretend they are part of some kind of militia. So yes I understand that every gun owner would not be inclined to join some whacko militia.

Okay. But do you understand that not all semi-auto rifle owners would be inclined to join a militia?

This is why I've been saying that the narrative from gun control advocates is, at the core, not so much about doing away with the gun, but eradicating a lifestyle and way of thinking. I've been monitoring this issue long enough to know that gun control advocates feel nothing but contempt for these so called "gun nuts". They regard them as uneducated, bigoted hillbillys whose opinions, rights and votes don't matter.

It's also plain to me that you and others here are stuck on the military look of the AR-15. More than once I've seen the question posed as to why these folks feel they need a military looking rifle. The M14 is a semi-automatic rifle that has been available commercially since the early sixties and is chambered for .308 Winchester which makes it even more deadly than the AR-15. But the M14 looks more like a hunting rifle so no one outside the gun enthusiast community knows about them or gives them a second thought because they're all obsessed with the one that simply looks more menacing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

I don't want to see all the guns in America confiscated.

And good luck fending off that so-called tyranny with your AR! Has there been precedent indicating success in such a situation?

True, no one advocates for gun ‘confiscation.’

And again, guns have nothing to do with liberty, freedom, or defending against tyranny.

To believe otherwise is sophomoric idiocy.

Individuals have the right to possess firearms for personal self-defense, to guard against criminal attack – not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected, constitutionally sanctioned government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As I wrote in the OP, I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. There are already threads on this board trying to arrive at a definition.

And, believe me when I say, 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' are phrases desperately in need of definitions.

But, in service of this particular thread, let us call an assault rifle an AR-15, an AK-47 and any other rifles commonly used by mass shooters. Rifles with the firing rate, the particular lethality of the rounds fired and the intended design purpose.

In the last assault weapons ban legislation, the debate was muddled by cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppresses have no bearing on the factors that make assault rifles so very lethal.

Why do people need semi-automatic weapons? Because they cannot trust this corporate entity that lamely attempts to disguise itself as a legitimate governmental body that is owned by international bankers that doesn't trust it's serfs either. How much more details do you need in order for me drive that point home? You are the type of idiot that would go to Colonel Sanders (as a chicken) and say that he needed to implement "beak" control because you got "pecked". The Chinese government is on your side, btw.....they are trying to shame America into implementing their style of (snicker) "gun control" where the state is your momma and your daddy. Fuck you, punkinpuss....the last movie I watched where only "da gubermint" had weapons was Schindler's List and it didn't work out all that well for the targets of Hitler as I recall as they were march into concentration camps, worked to death, starved and then eventually put into ovens. I have read diaries of those that perished there and said that they would have rather of died fighting even if it was futile than to live and die like they did. You are a blithering idiot and naive if you think that the end game that the elites have for us doesn't include that same scenario. There are over a 1,000 FEMA camps that have been built and it started in the late 70's for those that do not wish to be apart of the new world order. I know more than you.....infinitely more. You BETTER hope that President Trump is legit and that the white hats keep him protected.

Questions? Bring them on.......and don't give me the "tin foil hat" blow-off. I know exactly of what I speak. People need to learn how to live off the grid instead of staying so domesticated.

So you want to overthrow the government of the United States of America? Or you believe you can fend off the government with an assault rifle?

Is there another nation you might feel more comfortable in?

Overthrow this corporate entity that made us chattel via the Bankruptcy of March 1933 where our labor was pledged as surety against the debt? Are you saying that resistance is futile and therefore the poor serfs should just acquiesce and hope for the best and turn over any means to protect themselves? You sound like a fucking cowardly piece of shit to me.

65% of gun owners believe the public right to bear arms is protection against government tyranny. However this belief is not anchored in reality. Firearms in the hands of public is not going to be any protection against a tyrannical goverment.

If America experienced a widespread violent uprising today, it would bear little resemblance to Lexington and Concord in 1775. With 1.1 million law enforcement personnel and a military of 2 million active reserve personnel, any such uprising would be easily handled.

The overthrow of a large stable government supported by a large military can only be accomplished politically, not by citizens bearing arms.

65% of gun owners are wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

... of my duty to protect myself from a tyrannical government as the 2nd Amendment states.

Now let's play another game... compete this statement...

I absolutely want to see all guns in America confiscated because _______________________

Start another thread and I'll play along. Otherwise, I'm sticking to this discussion.



I want to challenge that idea that Heller v McDonald is a good precedent for the Second Amendment.


"Regulating the militia is separate and apart from the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Right. It only guarantees it.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

And there is your well regulated militia. The Constitution doesn't have a single word about the regulation of firearms. From the time of the debates all the way the first United States Supreme Court decisions, the Right to keep and Bear Arms was above the government's jurisdiction.

The Heller decision evolved from the judiciary's constant attack on the Second Amendment and our Rights in general. The bottom line is, Heller is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.

No court has ever interpreted the second amendment as guaranteeing the right of a citizen to own any weapon they choose. Anyone who doesn't understand the sheer insanity of such an interpretation is themselves insane and certainly should not be allowed to own a weapon of any sort.

Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:

“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”

Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment


Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:

In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:

"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811

Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:

In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?

A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.

BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.

Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.

And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.

Here is, basically, a straw man fallacy.

The ‘left’ makes no such argument.

Indeed, liberals support and follow current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

All firearm regulatory measures advocated for by liberals are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law, none having been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

And liberals agree with the Heller Court reaffirming the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that government may place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms, and that there are types of weapons not entitled to Constitutional protections.

There’s nothing more ridiculous than dishonest conservatives contriving equally ridiculous lies about the ‘left.’