Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,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.
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'.
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.
instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,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.
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'.
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,,,
instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,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.
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'.
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.
You are most definitely wrong. It was not until the Heller case in 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to the states and individuals. Even Heller ruled, that the 2nd amendment did not grant a carte blanche right to own guns and that states could regulate certain firearms.Every Supreme Court since 1789 disagrees with your interpretation.
That's 232 years worth of the best legal minds America has ever produced.
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
Every Supreme Court since 1789 disagrees with your interpretation.
That's 232 years worth of the best legal minds America has ever produced.
This isn’t an interpretation. It is an accurate summary of history. Your reply is taken as the vague generalization, with no specific valid content, or link to any valid history, is so noted.
‘The militia isn’t there to oppose the regular military. It’s there to supplement it. The Second and Third Amendments are designed to limit the scope of the military by providing an alternative.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.
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.
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.
Actually it was McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.You are most definitely wrong. It was not until the Heller case in 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to the states and individuals. Even Heller ruled, that the 2nd amendment did not grant a carte blanche right to own guns and that states could regulate certain firearms.Every Supreme Court since 1789 disagrees with your interpretation.
That's 232 years worth of the best legal minds America has ever produced.
Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.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.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
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. That was not the law until 2008.Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.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
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.
no, that's a fact.
the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.
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.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. That was not the law until 2008.Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.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
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.
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.
It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.
Deal with it.
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!"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.
"Permitted"??? Our government doesnt "permit" the 2and Amendment. It RECOGNIZES that the right of self defense comes from GODall too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms
Not sure why we have a problem that one requirement of owning a gun wouldn't include being trained in gun safety.
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!"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!"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.
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........
instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,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.
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'.
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. I already posted to an essay that covered the politics of militias , so I don't need to repeat myself over and over just because your mantras don't allow you to discuss anything outside your box.
