Here is the left trying to tell US, how with 25 reasons we justify having guns. I have just one reason.

[Soupnazi630]

If it was so explicit, it wouldn't have taken 200 years to find that in Heller.

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. - Warren Burger

Wrong.

It takeds as long as it takes because no one needed to challenge a law based on the meaning. When morons began interpreting it as a militia clause it became necessary and the correct and accurate meaning was confirmed

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong.

It takeds as long as it takes because no one needed to challenge a law based on the meaning. When morons began interpreting it as a militia clause it became necessary and the correct and accurate meaning was confirmed

Except people have been interpreting it as the militia since at least 1820.

Early Second Amendment Jurisprudence

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Soupnazi630]

Except people have been interpreting it as the militia since at least 1820.

Early Second Amendment Jurisprudence

www.law.cornell.edu

Only cranks with no comprehension.

Like you

They were wrong and so are you.

 

[Resnic]

View attachment 946616

The thing is, if we had a society that is based on American morals, values and standards then everyone can own a fully automatic AR-15 and everything would be perfectly fine.

If a decent society is devoid of criminals, drug abusers and crazy people then there is no one that really wants to go out and hurt others. Then we don't need any gun laws.

But if we vanished every gun in America right now all the dopeheads, criminals and nutballs that want to hurt people would still be here.

In a decent society anyone can own or chose to not own a gun and nothing changes.

I want to live in an america like my uncles where I could go in a hardware store and buy a pistol and some dynamite with cash and walk out, hell he could send money in the mail and buy a gun out of a magazine. Why? Because we had a mostly decent society, the better a society is the more free it can be.

 

[JoeB131]

The thing is, if we had a society that is based on American morals, values and standards then everyone can own a fully automatic AR-15 and everything would be perfectly fine.

If a decent society is devoid of criminals, drug abusers and crazy people then there is no one that really wants to go out and hurt others. Then we don't need any gun laws.

But if we vanished every gun in America right now all the dopeheads, criminals and nutballs that want to hurt people would still be here.

But their ability to do so would be severely diminished.

That's kind of the point.

That's why Europe doesn't have these problems. They have criminals and drug abusers and nutballs, but they can't get guns.

 

[LibertyKid]

But their ability to do so would be severely diminished.

Maybe. Those that are mentally, emotionally, psychotically disturbed, will find ways to harm others if they want, without guns. And let's not pretend, the number of deaths due to guns, by those people, are not a large number. You base so many of your arguments on emotional imbalance. The actual stats of gun deaths are tiny, compared to the numerous ways one can be killed, by others. But here you are, trying to make guns like the number one killer in America. And if the the urban community, could behave in a civil manner, the guns crimes would drop drastically. But let's not bring that point up either. To much statistical facts for you to worry about.

That's why Europe doesn't have these problems. They have criminals and drug abusers and nutballs, but they can't get guns.

Yes they do. And guess who are the ones getting the guns. The criminals and gangs! And to some extent, you may argue, that they may have some sociological issues as they don't want to conform or live in a morally built society. And gang/urban gun crime is a socially malevolent behavior. It needs to be rectified. But those communities will not stand up and look at themselves as their own problem and will point the finger elsewhere for their criminal activity.

 

[LibertyKid]

I really don't care what a bunch of slave rapists 'intended'. They intended for slavery to continue and for only white male landowners to hold the franchise. We evolved above that.

Doesn't negate the fact that gov't should never be trusted and the capacity to overthrow and remove that gov't has always been the right of the people to do so. You however will bow to your tyrannical gov't as long as they don't come marching up to your Chicago suburb apartment and arrest your ethnically diverse wife. And if they did, well, nothing you can do because, well, you don't have a way to defend your freedom because you love gov't. And you're argument again is illogical, as always.

My only concern is for today - does it make sense to have gun ownership to support Militias that stopped existing a century ago (when they were effectively replaced by the National Guard)?

And the sensible answer is - no. It makes no sense at all, especially when some of those "well-regulated militia" include Awake the Rapper, Joker Holmes, and Adam Lanza.

Your militia argument is null and void, you keep bring it up, and you have been proven wrong time and time again.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe. Those that are mentally, emotionally, psychotically disturbed, will find ways to harm others if they want, without guns. And let's not pretend, the number of deaths due to guns, by those people, are not a large number. You base so many of your arguments on emotional imbalance. The actual stats of gun deaths are tiny, compared to the numerous ways one can be killed, by others. But here you are, trying to make guns like the number one killer in America. And if the the urban community, could behave in a civil manner, the guns crimes would drop drastically. But let's not bring that point up either. To much statistical facts for you to worry about.

We have 43,000 gun deaths a year in this country. It's not a small number. Compare that to any European country, which have very few gun deaths and much lower murder rates.

And we have a bunch of wingnuts saying, "Hey, gun deaths are okay, it's just the Darkies getting killed!"

Of course, when an Urban community wants to ban gun ownership to reduce the carnage, you nutters will be the first ones running to SCOTUS to whine about it.

Yes they do. And guess who are the ones getting the guns. The criminals and gangs! And to some extent, you may argue, that they may have some sociological issues as they don't want to conform or live in a morally built society. And gang/urban gun crime is a socially malevolent behavior. It needs to be rectified. But those communities will not stand up and look at themselves as their own problem and will point the finger elsewhere for their criminal activity.

Is it ironic that a guy who calls himself "Liberty Kid" wants to lock more people up?

We lock up 2 million people. Most European countries lock up less than 100K.

We aren't a morally built society. We are a society built on genocide, slavery, and racism.

 

[JoeB131]

Doesn't negate the fact that gov't should never be trusted and the capacity to overthrow and remove that gov't has always been the right of the people to do so. You however will bow to your tyrannical gov't as long as they don't come marching up to your Chicago suburb apartment and arrest your ethnically diverse wife. And if they did, well, nothing you can do because, well, you don't have a way to defend your freedom because you love gov't. And you're argument again is illogical, as always.

1) attack on family reported.

2) Tryrannical or not, if the USCIS decided they want to deport my wife, there's really not a whole hell of a lot I can do about it. Shooting it out with them certainly isn't going to help, it's just going to get me, her, and probably some of our neighbors killed.

3) Whenever you fucknuts talk about "fighting the government", let's be clear who you are talking about. You are talking about murdering soldiers and policemen who are just doing their jobs.

4) Your fantasies about overthrowing the government isn't a good reason for the rest of us to have to live with gun-toting maniacs.

Your militia argument is null and void, you keep bring it up, and you have been proven wrong time and time again.

I agree. Militias are null and void. Why are we still using the militia amendment to justify Joker Holmes an Awake the Rapper to have easy access to guns? Do you really want them overthrowing the government?

 

[Soupnazi630]

1) attack on family reported.

2) Tryrannical or not, if the USCIS decided they want to deport my wife, there's really not a whole hell of a lot I can do about it. Shooting it out with them certainly isn't going to help, it's just going to get me, her, and probably some of our neighbors killed.

3) Whenever you fucknuts talk about "fighting the government", let's be clear who you are talking about. You are talking about murdering soldiers and policemen who are just doing their jobs.

4) Your fantasies about overthrowing the government isn't a good reason for the rest of us to have to live with gun-toting maniacs.



I agree. Militias are null and void. Why are we still using the militia amendment to justify Joker Holmes an Awake the Rapper to have easy access to guns? Do you really want them overthrowing the government?

There is no militia amendment. The second is about individual rights and always has been. That is settled fact,

 

[JoeB131]

There is no militia amendment. The second is about individual rights and always has been. That is settled fact,

Nope, it's about militias. It's the first four words in the amendment. The original text was also going to have religious abstentions from the militia.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nope, it's about militias. It's the first four words in the amendment. The original text was also going to have religious abstentions from the militia.

It is about individuals. The first four words are irrelevant. The right is garunteed to the people which means individuals. You are ignorant and knoe nothing about history. AS ALWAYS

 

[LibertyKid]

Nope, it's about militias. It's the first four words in the amendment. The original text was also going to have religious abstentions from the militia.

And what you ignore are also state constitutions that back up also what the 2nd Amendment states. State's constitutions reinforce the meaning of the 2A. Two for you to review....

State of Illinois:

Illinois Constitution

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

State of Pennsylvania:

The Constitution of Pennsylvania

www.legis.state.pa.us

21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

 

[JoeB131]

And what you ignore are also state constitutions that back up also what the 2nd Amendment states. State's constitutions reinforce the meaning of the 2A. Two for you to review....

Don't care about the state constitutions.

None of that stops common sense gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Again, my simple solution.

Make the gun industry responsible for gun background checks, and allow victims to sue when they sell a gun to the wrong person.

Either they'll clean up their act, or they'll go out of business, and I'm fine with either.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Don't care about the state constitutions.

None of that stops common sense gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Again, my simple solution.

Make the gun industry responsible for gun background checks, and allow victims to sue when they sell a gun to the wrong person.

Either they'll clean up their act, or they'll go out of business, and I'm fine with either.

That is not common sense

Few crazy people get guns and it is too important a right to regulate away

 

[JoeB131]

That is not common sense

Few crazy people get guns and it is too important a right to regulate away

It's not a right.
It's not important
And we have too many mass shootings and single shooting because people who have no business owning guns can get them.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's not a right.
It's not important
And we have too many mass shootings and single shooting because people who have no business owning guns can get them.

yes it is a right that is settled

It is the most important of rights

The biggest perpetrator of gun violecne is the government who wants everyone disarmed

 

[JoeB131]

yes it is a right that is settled

It is the most important of rights

The biggest perpetrator of gun violecne is the government who wants everyone disarmed

Appoint three sensible justices, it's not settled.

Guns make us less free because the state has to become stronger in response. Why do you think our cops are armed like soldiers and have to go into situations shooting?

Again, when you are making a cop face down military grade weapons, what are they supposed to do.

It's not really, true, by the way. While we have an appalling number of people killed by police (1000 a year) we have 19,000 people killed by guns and 23,000 gun suicides.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Uh, guy, your interpretation of German history is laughable.

First, Hitler didn't confiscate any guns. In fact, he rolled back the largely ineffective Weimar gun laws (for those considered Aryan enough which was still 95% of the population.)

/----/ Nope. You're the one who is laughably wrong.

How the Nazis Used Gun Control | National Review

The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration…

www.nationalreview.com

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

 

[Cellblock2429]

Appoint three sensible justices, it's not settled.

Guns make us less free because the state has to become stronger in response. Why do you think our cops are armed like soldiers and have to go into situations shooting?

Again, when you are making a cop face down military grade weapons, what are they supposed to do.

It's not really, true, by the way. While we have an appalling number of people killed by police (1000 a year) we have 19,000 people killed by guns and 23,000 gun suicides.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

/----/ "Appoint three sensible justices,"
TRANSLATION: Appoint three gun grabbing justices.
In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official.