Gun owner paranoia---

[Shawnee_b]

Lets not forget that a license is required to operate a car.

Big deal. My 1st wife in 1980 had to retest in WA with a CT license. The examiner said "well if it was up to me you would never drive but you passed I have to give it to you."

She couldn't drive. Put on a left blinker to turn right, always. Totaled the car, permanent disfigured my daughter. So much for a driver lic.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Start with this case, and get back to me with questions:

U.S. v. Emerson

Your cited case is in no way a ruling that "The 2nd Amendment is a bar on federal authority. PERIOD."

In fact, the federal government has jurisdiction over firearms in a number of areas:

I POSSESSION OR RECEIPT OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION BY A PROHIBITED PERSON​

​

II. KNOWINGLY SELL, GIVE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION TO ANY PERSON WHO FALLS WITHIN ONE OF THE ABOVE CATEGORIES...​

​

III. USE, CARRY OR POSSESS A FIREARM IN RELATION TO OR IN FURTHERANCE OF A FEDERAL DRUG FELONY OR A FEDERAL CRIME OF VIOLENCE.​

​

V. FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE​

​

VI. KNOWINGLY POSSESS OR MANUFACTURE CERTAIN FIREARMS​

​

VII. SELL, DELIVER OR TRANSFER FIREARM OR AMMUNITION TO A JUVENILE​

​

​

​

​

And that's what we are talking about shitlapper, infringement on the 2nd. Constitution doesn't say that, BATFe did. On their own. No input from anyone, no congress, nothing. They just make up their rules. And the ATF CFR book has more than doubled in the last 50 years.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

God said it first. No 2nd needed.

 

[Shawnee_b]

How bout that, Darryl still can't admit the 1896 Machine gun BAN was a ban. "feds can't ban a firearm" Yeah they did, many of them for 36 years now.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Lying shit stain! Trashed.

I'm just reading the whole sentence and interpreting it per the rules of standard grammar. Had the authors intended the 2ndA to be unabridged, all that they had to do is not include the prefatory clause .

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.

you're hilarious.

It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?

Yes they were given the right because the security of a free state DEPENDS on the

 

[Auld Phart]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.

you're hilarious.

It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?

Yes they were given the right because the security of a free state DEPENDS on the

" Yes they were given the right because the security of a free state DEPENDS on the " ??

the what?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.

you're hilarious.

It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?

You are confused, I never wrote that the right was given to the militia. Paste it here or try a new angle with your misreading of plain language.

Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.

you're hilarious.

It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?

Yes they were given the right because the security of a free state DEPENDS on the

" Yes they were given the right because the security of a free state DEPENDS on the " ??

the what?

A well regulated militia? It ain't much of a militia without weapons, now is it?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Lets not forget that a license is required to operate a car.

Big deal. My 1st wife in 1980 had to retest in WA with a CT license. The examiner said "well if it was up to me you would never drive but you passed I have to give it to you."

She couldn't drive. Put on a left blinker to turn right, always. Totaled the car, permanent disfigured my daughter. So much for a driver lic.

My sympathies, sincerely.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

God said it first. No 2nd needed.

No offense, but I'm sure you won't mind if I don't take your word for what God says.

 

[Auld Phart]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.

you're hilarious.

It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?

You are confused, I never wrote that the right was given to the militia. Paste it here or try a new angle with your misreading of plain language.

Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc.

I never wrote that the right was given to the militia.

Never said you did, did I?

You're posting like the 'people' have no right to won a firearm.

"Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc."

Well regulated.

Between ages of 16-45, in some areas, 57.

sound of mind and body.

That is the requirement to belong to a militia.

By YOUR standard, citizens under the age of 16 and over the age of 45 cannot even own a firearm for hunting, or self defense.

the FF understood that, which is why the RIGHT was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

But y'all are stuck on the first quarter of the amendment, and claim that only the militia have a right to own a firearm.

and that's why, IMO, over 60% of the country laughs at you.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.

you're hilarious.

It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?

You are confused, I never wrote that the right was given to the militia. Paste it here or try a new angle with your misreading of plain language.

Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc.

I never wrote that the right was given to the militia.

Never said you did, did I?

You're posting like the 'people' have no right to won a firearm.

"Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc."

Well regulated.

Between ages of 16-45, in some areas, 57.

sound of mind and body.

That is the requirement to belong to a militia.

By YOUR standard, citizens under the age of 16 and over the age of 45 cannot even own a firearm for hunting, or self defense.

the FF understood that, which is why the RIGHT was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

But y'all are stuck on the first quarter of the amendment, and claim that only the militia have a right to own a firearm.

and that's why, IMO, over 60% of the country laughs at you.

As to your opening denial, in Post #480 you wrote to me:
"It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?" Please explain why you felt the need to ask your lame question. Again, I made no such argument.

The first quarter of the sentence is a prefatory clause, a modifier, an incomplete thought that cannot stand alone. I'm not stuck on it. I'm simply reading the whole sentence as the author intended. You want to pretend that said MODIFYER is not there. But, there it is.

Nothing about anything I've written, as you suggest of me, issues that 16 year-olds can't own to hunt, or that others can't own for self-protection. Would you'd like to ask me where you can shove your strawman arguments? Sorry, but iIt's a real bore having to defend positions that you draw for me.

Regarding your 60% opinion, ask me if I give a shit.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?

If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

 

[Auld Phart]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment has been mangled by twisting the function of a prefatory clause and failing to apply common sense to changing times and circumstances.

Which is why our founders included the ability to amend the Constitution.

True, and if Republicans keep acting stupid that may happen.

That said, a Constitutional Amendment should not be required to observe basic grammar. Properly read, the 2ndA stipulates the necessity of a well armed militia. It says nothing about shooting bears, intruders or school kids.

Properly read it says the right of the "People" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...it doesn't say anything about only a militia having arms....

Sure it does. Read the entire sentence in which your phrase is contained.

Why dont' you read the entire sentence?

"Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says the PEOPLE will have that right.

No it doesn't say that (above) but the opening clause does qualify the reason for the right.

you're hilarious.

It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?
Can YOU tell me what 'well regulated' means in the Second?

You are confused, I never wrote that the right was given to the militia. Paste it here or try a new angle with your misreading of plain language.

Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc.

I never wrote that the right was given to the militia.

Never said you did, did I?

You're posting like the 'people' have no right to own a firearm.

"Broadly, I would say that it means capable of operating efficiently, rules, regs, chain of command, weapons, etc, etc."

Well regulated.

Between ages of 16-45, in some areas, 57.

sound of mind and body.

That is the requirement to belong to a militia.

By YOUR standard, citizens under the age of 16 and over the age of 45 cannot even own a firearm for hunting, or self defense.

the FF understood that, which is why the RIGHT was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

But y'all are stuck on the first quarter of the amendment, and claim that only the militia have a right to own a firearm.

and that's why, IMO, over 60% of the country laughs at you.

As to your opening denial, in Post #480 you wrote to me:
"It clearly states the the right is given to the people, not the militia, and you're arguing it doesn't?" Please explain why you felt the need to ask your lame question. Again, I made no such argument.

The first quarter of the sentence is a prefatory clause, a modifier, an incomplete thought that cannot stand alone. I'm not stuck on it. I'm simply reading the whole sentence as the author intended. You want to pretend that said MODIFYER is not there. But, there it is.

Nothing about anything I've written, as you suggest of me, issues that 16 year-olds can't own to hunt, or that others can't own for self-protection. Would you'd like to ask me where you can shove your strawman arguments? Sorry, but iIt's a real bore having to defend positions that you draw for me.

Regarding your 60% opinion, ask me if I give a shit.

Again, I made no such argument.

Every time you post, you make that argument.

you, like other idiots, make the claim that ONLY militia have the right to bear arms, by ignoring everything after the word militia.

an incomplete thought that cannot stand alone.

it doesn't.

It gives the right to bear arms to the people.

which you want to ignore.

I can tell you don't give a shit.

or you wouldn't be making these lame arguments.

" Would you'd like to ask me where you can shove your strawman arguments? "

you can shove them back into the space where you got your strawman arguments.

Considering how badly they stink, it should be obvious where they come from

 

[Utilitarian]

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

It depends on the regulations employed. Most conservatives are fine with psychological background checks. What people object to are arbitrary limits on magazine sizes, arbitrary limits on semiauto rifles, or red flag laws that are vaguely worded and easily abused.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

So what are "sane" gun laws in your opinion? It seems every time I ask an anti-gun leftist, they all seem to have a different answer. Then I ask what will it solve besides disarming law abiding people, and they get real quiet.

 

[Auld Phart]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?

If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws

and who decides what's 'sane'?

Is banning 'assault weapons' sane?

Over 3 million in civilian hands, and less that 50 have been used to murder in the last 40 years.

Is that 'sane'?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It depends on the regulations employed. Most conservatives are fine with psychological background checks. What people object to are arbitrary limits on magazine sizes, arbitrary limits on semiauto rifles, or red flag laws that are vaguely worded and easily abused.

What do you mean by a psychological background check, because this conservative is not behind that.

 

[AZrailwhale]

High legal gun ownership guarantees lots of criminals with guns.

yeah that's why crime rates are lower than they were 20 years ago

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Law enforcement is gunned down weekly. That is rare in countries with strong gun control. They also rarely shoot people . Many of our problems are due to weak gun laws.

We lock up the wrong people and we have pretty horrible bail policies.

Did you know that almost 70% of people in prisons right now have not been convicted of any crime but are merely awaiting trial?

There aren’t any people in prison awaiting trial. People waiting for trials are in local or county jails.