CDZ How The Second Amendment Comes From Something That Happened In The 2nd Century BCE

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

No, it actually isn't...

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”).

Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.



As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the

Rubbish. It is used in connection with a state organized militia. If you had bother to read Madison you would know he favored a Federal militia over individual state militias, all with the same uniforms and arms. Federalist 46 I think is Madison's vision, 29 is Hamilton's.

it doesnt matter what they said,, what matters is what they wrote down in the constitution,,

lol you mean what you wish they wrote down. Besides, we all know hardly any of you 'heroes' are going to 'Fight Tyranny N Stuff' so quit embarrassing yourselves with this gibberish about 'keeping America Free'; you aren't going to do squat about keeping anybody free. You're going to hide under your beds and whine.

they did write it down,,

its called the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments,,,

 

[Circe]

That's right, cuz your right to be irresponsible and kill somebody while screwing around with a weapon you can't handle properly is specifically what the Founders meant by the Second Amendment.

Ummmmmm, I'm not sure you are right there, nor that it's relevant. The problem of the moment is furious people frantic about the COVID police state problems taking out their anger on neighbors and family. Some black ex-NFL player just last night killed an elderly white doctor and wife and grandchildren and some other people in South Carolina. It's happening almost daily now; I blame the COVID lockdowns and maskings and all the other idiocies.

 

[2aguy]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........

Wrong, this is a lie.

“No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust”

PolitiFact - No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent

www.politifact.com

Do you guys understand that this is a lie? That they intentionally ignore the fact....the fact, that the socialists in Germany took guns away from those groups they planned on persecuting and murdering?

Do you understand how that politifact check is just out and out lying?

First, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power and he later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.

Yes........they registered guns in the 1920s stating that they were doing it to keep make German citizens safer......then, in the 1930s, the socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies......which allowed their brown shirts....(their blm and antifa of the day) to target for beatings, murder, and arson, their political opponents...making it impossible to resist the socialists.......allowing the socialists the ability to take power in the end...

If the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea, no other government in 230+ years has looked at it and said, "We need that here!"

Because those governments want control over their people.....

Russia...murdered 25 million

China...murdered 70 million.

Japan...murdered 3 million.

Cambodia, 1/3 of the population murdered.

Europe...socialists murdered 12 million.

Those countries believed like you ....... the people shouldn't have guns...because it is so much harder to murder them when they can shoot back.

 

[2aguy]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

 

[skews13]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

Yes. Very clear. “WELL REGULATED”

 

[candycorn]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........

Wrong, this is a lie.

“No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust”

PolitiFact - No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent

www.politifact.com

Do you guys understand that this is a lie? That they intentionally ignore the fact....the fact, that the socialists in Germany took guns away from those groups they planned on persecuting and murdering?

Do you understand how that politifact check is just out and out lying?

First, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power and he later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.

Yes........they registered guns in the 1920s stating that they were doing it to keep make German citizens safer......then, in the 1930s, the socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies......which allowed their brown shirts....(their blm and antifa of the day) to target for beatings, murder, and arson, their political opponents...making it impossible to resist the socialists.......allowing the socialists the ability to take power in the end...

If the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea, no other government in 230+ years has looked at it and said, "We need that here!"

Because those governments want control over their people.....

Russia...murdered 25 million

China...murdered 70 million.

Japan...murdered 3 million.

Cambodia, 1/3 of the population murdered.

Europe...socialists murdered 12 million.

Those countries believed like you ....... the people shouldn't have guns...because it is so much harder to murder them when they can shoot back.

Every nation...for 230+ years? Really? Not one had the idea of "Hey, lets arm the people so that our neighboring enemies will have to fight them too in addition to our army?"

Its the CDZ but clearly...you're just full of it.

 

[Auld Phart]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

Yes. Very clear. “WELL REGULATED”

Yes. Very clear. “WELL REGULATED”

(Psst, it says the militia is 'well regulated', not the people)

 

[candycorn]

That's right, cuz your right to be irresponsible and kill somebody while screwing around with a weapon you can't handle properly is specifically what the Founders meant by the Second Amendment.

Ummmmmm, I'm not sure you are right there, nor that it's relevant. The problem of the moment is furious people frantic about the COVID police state problems taking out their anger on neighbors and family. Some black ex-NFL player just last night killed an elderly white doctor and wife and grandchildren and some other people in South Carolina. It's happening almost daily now; I blame the COVID lockdowns and maskings and all the other idiocies.

Okay, let say he was an Ex EPL player (English Premier League) living in Dover or London or Liverpool. He's frustrated at all of the "idiocies" as you say. He likely just stews on the situation and then gets over it. But since he's an ex NFL player living in SC...he can go to the pawn shop and buy as many guns as he wants and blast away at someone.

Its little wonder that the other nations are looking at our 2nd Amendment and want no part of it since, as you say, it's almost a daily happening. We've become ice cold about the loss of life due to the 2nd Amendment since 1/2 the nation chalks it up to "Well, they should have armed themselves"

 

[progressive hunter]

That's right, cuz your right to be irresponsible and kill somebody while screwing around with a weapon you can't handle properly is specifically what the Founders meant by the Second Amendment.

Ummmmmm, I'm not sure you are right there, nor that it's relevant. The problem of the moment is furious people frantic about the COVID police state problems taking out their anger on neighbors and family. Some black ex-NFL player just last night killed an elderly white doctor and wife and grandchildren and some other people in South Carolina. It's happening almost daily now; I blame the COVID lockdowns and maskings and all the other idiocies.

Okay, let say he was an Ex EPL player (English Premier League) living in Dover or London or Liverpool. He's frustrated at all of the "idiocies" as you say. He likely just stews on the situation and then gets over it. But since he's an ex NFL player living in SC...he can go to the pawn shop and buy as many guns as he wants and blast away at someone.

Its little wonder that the other nations are looking at our 2nd Amendment and want no part of it since, as you say, it's almost a daily happening. We've become ice cold about the loss of life due to the 2nd Amendment since 1/2 the nation chalks it up to "Well, they should have armed themselves"

its not like its not easier to just get in a car and drive through a crowd of people,,,

 

[Circe]

Its little wonder that the other nations are looking at our 2nd Amendment and want no part of it since, as you say, it's almost a daily happening. We've become ice cold about the loss of life due to the 2nd Amendment since 1/2 the nation chalks it up to "Well, they should have armed themselves"

So they should --------- though it might not have done any good if he snuck up on them.

It's crucial that we be able to shoot back, absolutely crucial. I want the chance to shoot back if attacked.

 

[Circe]

its not like its not easier to just get in a car and drive through a crowd of people,,,

And if they get onto the freeway rioting, that's exactly what people should do.

 

[candycorn]

Its little wonder that the other nations are looking at our 2nd Amendment and want no part of it since, as you say, it's almost a daily happening. We've become ice cold about the loss of life due to the 2nd Amendment since 1/2 the nation chalks it up to "Well, they should have armed themselves"

So they should --------- though it might not have done any good if he snuck up on them.

It's crucial that we be able to shoot back, absolutely crucial. I want the chance to shoot back if attacked.

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

Complete horseshit. Are you American? If so, your ignorance is astounding.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" 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. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008.

It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.

Deal with it.

You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.

So post the cases, with the understanding that the SCOTUS can fuck up too, just like Biden.

 

[2aguy]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

No...we know why....the Germans didn't want a 2nd Amendment because you can't murder 12 million men, women and children if the 12 million have easy access to guns........

Wrong, this is a lie.

“No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust”

PolitiFact - No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent

www.politifact.com

Do you guys understand that this is a lie? That they intentionally ignore the fact....the fact, that the socialists in Germany took guns away from those groups they planned on persecuting and murdering?

Do you understand how that politifact check is just out and out lying?

First, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power and he later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.

Yes........they registered guns in the 1920s stating that they were doing it to keep make German citizens safer......then, in the 1930s, the socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies......which allowed their brown shirts....(their blm and antifa of the day) to target for beatings, murder, and arson, their political opponents...making it impossible to resist the socialists.......allowing the socialists the ability to take power in the end...

If the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea, no other government in 230+ years has looked at it and said, "We need that here!"

Because those governments want control over their people.....

Russia...murdered 25 million

China...murdered 70 million.

Japan...murdered 3 million.

Cambodia, 1/3 of the population murdered.

Europe...socialists murdered 12 million.

Those countries believed like you ....... the people shouldn't have guns...because it is so much harder to murder them when they can shoot back.

Every nation...for 230+ years? Really? Not one had the idea of "Hey, lets arm the people so that our neighboring enemies will have to fight them too in addition to our army?"

Its the CDZ but clearly...you're just full of it.

Again...those countries don't want their people armed because they don't want them to stand up to the government.....

You can't explain...

25 million murdered in Russia.

70 million murdered in China.

3 million murdered in Asia by Japan.

1/3 the population of cambodia murdered..........

All of the deaths caused by criminals with guns over the same 80 year period? Doesn't even come close to that death count...

Governments with guns, telling their people they are safer without guns....then they murder them......

This is why we have the 2nd Amendment....and nothing you spout can deny the murder of all of these innocent citizens.

 

[2aguy]

Its little wonder that the other nations are looking at our 2nd Amendment and want no part of it since, as you say, it's almost a daily happening. We've become ice cold about the loss of life due to the 2nd Amendment since 1/2 the nation chalks it up to "Well, they should have armed themselves"

So they should --------- though it might not have done any good if he snuck up on them.

It's crucial that we be able to shoot back, absolutely crucial. I want the chance to shoot back if attacked.

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

Did the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Asians feel safe when their governments murdered them?

 

[2aguy]

That's right, cuz your right to be irresponsible and kill somebody while screwing around with a weapon you can't handle properly is specifically what the Founders meant by the Second Amendment.

Ummmmmm, I'm not sure you are right there, nor that it's relevant. The problem of the moment is furious people frantic about the COVID police state problems taking out their anger on neighbors and family. Some black ex-NFL player just last night killed an elderly white doctor and wife and grandchildren and some other people in South Carolina. It's happening almost daily now; I blame the COVID lockdowns and maskings and all the other idiocies.

Okay, let say he was an Ex EPL player (English Premier League) living in Dover or London or Liverpool. He's frustrated at all of the "idiocies" as you say. He likely just stews on the situation and then gets over it. But since he's an ex NFL player living in SC...he can go to the pawn shop and buy as many guns as he wants and blast away at someone.

Its little wonder that the other nations are looking at our 2nd Amendment and want no part of it since, as you say, it's almost a daily happening. We've become ice cold about the loss of life due to the 2nd Amendment since 1/2 the nation chalks it up to "Well, they should have armed themselves"

Oh yeah....they have guns in Britain......you just have to be a rich soccer player or politician to own them.............

11 killed in Cumbria, England....sawn off, double barreled shotgun and .22 bolt action rifle....

Meanwhile...in the U.S......Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives from violent criminals....criminals the democrat party keeps letting out of jail and prison...

1.1 million lives .....saved from rape, robbery and murder.....

Tell us.....which do you prefer.....

A woman is raped, tortured and murdered...or she uses a gun to stop it?

Tell us...your anti-gun extremist friends do not want to answer that question.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

More shameless lying agitprop from Daily Kooks.

The sentence structure is clear....

View attachment 477276

Whipping out diagrammed sentences on an ill-prepared mob, eh?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

Historically, Europeans have a long tradition of kneeling placidly before their rulers. That don't fly here.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Somebody already beat me to the Heller argument. That being said, the whole idea of a "well regulated militia" has already been differentiated. And it doesn't apply. It's one of the reasons that the modern day National Guard doesn't like being associated with the word "militia". I support any law abiding citizens right to own, operate, and carry a firearm. But gun regulations aren't gun grabs. I see nothing wrong with a national gun registry, closing all the gunshow loopholes, forcing private sales to either be handled through a licensed firearms dealer or pass registration in your state, and expanded background checks. These are just common sense.

So, About That "Well-Regulated Militia" Part of the Constitution

Bay Area demonstrations by right-wing groups scheduled over the weekend fizzled in face of massive opposition protests, defusing fears that Charlottesville-like violence could erupt in San Francisco and Berkeley. Indeed, protests in San Francisco were peaceful, and the few scuffles that did...

alumni.berkeley.edu

The Germans, French, Russians, Australians, Canadians, British, New Zealand didn't see anything wrong with a national gun registry either.....in fact, they liked it so much, they used it when they decided to ban and confiscate guns...



There is no gun show loophole.

Registration is the goal, so you can later ban and confiscate without having to worry about people hiding their guns...which is the only reason you want universal background checks....it is the trojan horse for gun registration.

While it may be somewhat misnamed, the gun show loophole does indeed exist.

What Is the Gun Show Loophole and Why Does it Exist?

Gun sold or transferred by private gun owners are not regulated by law in many states, creating a loophole in gun control.

www.thoughtco.com

I see constant wailing on this board about the gun violence in Chicago when the city is supposed to be a gun free zone.
Well...where do the guns come from? And how do they get there? If you look at this article, you'll notice the states that
have "closed" that loophole and those that haven't. You will also find that the most of the guns that make it into Chicago,
come from the states that still have that loophole open.

There is nothing wrong with registration. We demand that cars are registered.
And your gun "ban" argument in these countries doesn't quite hold water. I just took Germany as an example.
In fact, I see a lot common sense in these requirements. Some of them wouldn't fly here and I would never support a gun grab (Wouldn't happen anyway).

Gun control and firearms possession in Germany – DW – 12/12/2022

Germany considers tougher gun laws after a suspected coup attempt linked to the far-right Reichsbürger group. DW looks at Germany's gun ownership laws.

www.dw.com