How do you view our gun policy and second amendment?

[danielpalos]

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

.

dan: No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

... well regulated militias of the People


just curious as to who you are referring to ^ as non in this country exist ( civilian militia ), thankfully and if so why that would not be included as a " strict military exclusion " per the Amendment ? -

from national Arms regulation per any and all uses being the same irregardless the status of any person or organization other than military / militia.

.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law--10USC311 is relevant.

 

[danielpalos]

.
nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.


let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

.

dan: No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

... well regulated militias of the People


just curious as to who you are referring to ^ as non in this country exist ( civilian militia ), thankfully and if so why that would not be included as a " strict military exclusion " per the Amendment ? -

from national Arms regulation per any and all uses being the same irregardless the status of any person or organization other than military / militia.

He's lying to you. Its all he does.

Only the clueless and the Causeless have to lie due to a lack of a hard work ethic; and resort to the Socialism of appeal to the masses, instead of Individual logic and reason.

 

[Roadrunner]

can you imagine not having a weapon with the direction our government is going

I am not armed because of the government.

I am armed because the government does not do its job and keep the streets safe, and I am armed because any minor disruption of the infrastructure means that for all practical purposes there is no government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled and you don't get to change their decision. The second is an Individual right not a group right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled and you don't get to change their decision. The second is an Individual right not a group right.

danielpalos will only lie to you.

 

[danielpalos]

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled and you don't get to change their decision. The second is an Individual right not a group right.

I am not changing anything. Paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance that is corrected by Paragraph (2) of that same holding. Read it for yourself. There is no Individual Right supporting the claim of paragraph (1) in paragraph (2).

 

[danielpalos]

.
nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.


let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled and you don't get to change their decision. The second is an Individual right not a group right.

danielpalos will only lie to you.

I don't need to lie or resort to fallacies of appeal to the social masses; unlike the false Capitalist Right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

.
nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.


let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled and you don't get to change their decision. The second is an Individual right not a group right.

I am not changing anything. Paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance that is corrected by Paragraph (2) of that same holding. Read it for yourself. There is no Individual Right supporting the claim of paragraph (1) in paragraph (2).

RETARD alert. RETARD alert. Being unable to understand basic english proves just how stupid you are. The Court ruled that in fact the right to own possess and carry firearms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT unassociated with a membership in any militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled and you don't get to change their decision. The second is an Individual right not a group right.

I am not changing anything. Paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance that is corrected by Paragraph (2) of that same holding. Read it for yourself. There is no Individual Right supporting the claim of paragraph (1) in paragraph (2).

RETARD alert. RETARD alert. Being unable to understand basic english proves just how stupid you are. The Court ruled that in fact the right to own possess and carry firearms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT unassociated with a membership in any militia.

Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sensible gun control and gun rights are not incompatible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People who think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute are people who logically think that child pornography is protected by freedom of the press.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

People who think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute are people who logically think that child pornography is protected by freedom of the press.

Prove your claim.

 

[danielpalos]

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled and you don't get to change their decision. The second is an Individual right not a group right.

I am not changing anything. Paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance that is corrected by Paragraph (2) of that same holding. Read it for yourself. There is no Individual Right supporting the claim of paragraph (1) in paragraph (2).

RETARD alert. RETARD alert. Being unable to understand basic english proves just how stupid you are. The Court ruled that in fact the right to own possess and carry firearms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT unassociated with a membership in any militia.

Dude, simply appealing to ignorance; like usual?

Paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance that is corrected by Paragraph (2) of that same holding. Read it for yourself. There is no Individual Right supporting the claim of paragraph (1) in paragraph (2).

Care to show me where Your claim is to be found in paragraph (2) of DC v Heller? As far as I am concerned, it is an open book test and y'all fell for it.

 

[danielpalos]

People who think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute are people who logically think that child pornography is protected by freedom of the press.

Prove your claim.

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller.

 

[danielpalos]

.
bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled and you don't get to change their decision. The second is an Individual right not a group right.

I am not changing anything. Paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance that is corrected by Paragraph (2) of that same holding. Read it for yourself. There is no Individual Right supporting the claim of paragraph (1) in paragraph (2).

RETARD alert. RETARD alert. Being unable to understand basic english proves just how stupid you are. The Court ruled that in fact the right to own possess and carry firearms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT unassociated with a membership in any militia.

Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.

Only the clueless and the Causeless fall for open book tests.

 

[Agit8r]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

The original intent of the Second Amendment had two parts tending toward the same end:

A). That there be no need for a standing military force during peacetime.

B). That the people could collectively defend themselves against the whims of a tyrant.

Of course the first of these has been subverted outright. Even many cities have unaccountable armed forces eager to satisfy their männerphantasien upon an unsuspecting populace.

On the second point, numerous madmen now have the opportunity to be tyrant for a day.

It need hardly be said that present policy is the precise opposite of what the intent of the amendment was.

 

[danielpalos]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

The original intent of the Second Amendment had two parts tending toward the same end:

A). That there be no need for a standing military force during peacetime.

B). That the people could collectively defend themselves against the whims of a tyrant.

Of course the first of these has been subverted outright. Even many cities have unaccountable armed forces eager to satisfy their männerphantasien upon an unsuspecting populace.

On the second point, numerous madmen now have the opportunity to be tyrant for a day.

It need hardly be said that present policy is the precise opposite of what the intent of the amendment was.

Can you show how the Intent and Purpose of the first clause, does what you claim in B).

 

[Contumacious]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

VERY SIMPLE MY MAN


WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THE SAME.


.

 

[danielpalos]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

VERY SIMPLE MY MAN


WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THE SAME.


.

Yes, and it is found in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution which Only secures Due Process; simply because our Founding Fathers really really were that wise when creating our supreme law of the land. Only the clueless and Causeless Right doesn't realize it, yet.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Contumacious]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

VERY SIMPLE MY MAN


WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THE SAME.


.

Yes, and it is found in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution which Only secures Due Process; simply because our Founding Fathers really really were that wise when creating our supreme law of the land. Only the clueless and Causeless Right doesn't realize it, yet.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

HUH?


WTF?


NINTH AMENDMENT:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [