CDZ Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

[FA_Q2]

Except for the fact the left has no constitutional standing on increasing gun control laws. And the ones they have made (without any legitimate constitutional standing) turn out to be racist gun laws, mainly effecting law abiding black citizens, barring them from gun ownership. You want to increase gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment and then work from there. Language is very solid there, although the left likes to argue about the placement of a comma in the 2nd and claim it only applies to militias (their definition of militias being the military) even though that wasn't at all practiced for the nations first 200 years.

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

 

[Pogo]

"Where"? Really, "where"???

Literally any day or night scanning literally any set of TV channels anywhere......... Movies.......... video games............ comic books ......... fiction ............. toys ........... scholastic history classes .......... sports metaphors and everyday language in or out of sports......... "Where" he says, as if he lives in a damn cave.

Normal adjusted people do not fetishize instruments made to fire projectiles to kill things. That's a mental illness.

Then tell the anti gunners on U.S. message to stop doing that......since every time we talk about guns they start talking about having sex with them....

"Fetish" doesn't necessarily mean something sexual, Sparkles.

See #s 1, 2 and 4 here:

fet·ish
(fĕt′ĭsh)
n.
1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Something, such as a material object or nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.
​

An irrational obsession or fixation.

Even this message board has an entire forum dedicated to it. See any similar forum on, say, knives? Swords? Poisons? Truncheons? Shillelaghs?

​

So.....people have a fetish for computers.....and wine, the X-box?

Some do, sure. And throw in smartphones. That's a big one.

The difference is, (a) those things are not an endlessly central character in your typical movie, TV show, comic book, video game, novel, etc etc etc, and (b) those things don't kill people.

Seems like your issue is with Hollywood not gun owners so take it up with them

Yes in large part, it is. I didn't mention gun owners; I already have my targets in the crosshairs.

 

[Pogo]

That question is meaningless in the context of the thread itself as well as the current thread of the conversation which is exploring the right of the people to bear arms. If you wish to have a philosophical discussion on the reasoning behind the preparatory clause then that is open for discussion. Inserting it into a discussion about the right to bear arms and then stating that you never said that clause changes the protected right for the people is disingenuous at best.

I just *DID* insert it. And I did it honestly; there's not a thing in the world "disingenuous" about it. Actually it was more intended for sakinago who doesn't seem to be afraid of a challenge. If it's "disingenuous" you're after, consider your own attempts to twist my words into something I didn't suggest.

And by the way the term is "prefatory", as in preface --- and all that means is that it comes before, which still is not an answer.

It does not change the protected right is an answer to the topic of the thread.

Once again --- I didn't claim it "changes" anything. I just want to know what it's doing in there.

 

[danielpalos]

the point is; more guns equals more safety, is just right wing fantasy, without wellness of regulation or gun control laws.

No.....as actual facts show, from the CDC and the FBI, as more Americans own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down by 47%....and our accident rates went down as well...you are just wrong.

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

And you are wrong. The actual stats say everything.......

the actual stats don't claim they operate in a vacuum of special pleading; regulations can account for the decrease.

No....since we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense with most states not allowing it, to now every state having some form of carry ability and 15 million people, minimum, carrying guns for self defense......and not one law you point to that was passed in 1993 can be shown to have stopped criminals from getting guns......

yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.

 

[danielpalos]

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

short attention span? it is about claiming more guns equals less crime, but omitting gun control laws as an effect. the analogy is similar to automobile statistics.

No it is still a false equivalency since there's a constitutional amendment for one telling the government not to infringe, and nothing for the other.

In every single instant, every single instant, a country has implemented some sort of gun ban, murder rates increase. You'd think that just maybe once there'd be some sort of exception to the rule, but there isn't. And it's because of the simple fact that gun control laws do not apply to criminals acting outside of the law. They only apply to law abiding citizens, constricting their ability to defend themselves. Guns in the hands of good people stop crime, whether that person is an officer or homemaker out buying groceries.

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks

FBI Crime Stats Show an Armed Public Is a Safer Public

GUN BANS LEAD TO INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

you don't understand the concept.

auto regulations increased the safety of autos in much the same way gun control laws increase the safety of guns and gun lovers.

No....not even the same thing.....not even close....you are wrong. Gun safety has not changed much over the period of time of the decrease in gun accidents and gun murder...you are making a false statement.

yes; it is exactly the same thing. it has to do with gun control laws because Ten simple Commandments don't work for free.

 

[danielpalos]

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

This is a ridiculous narrative manufactured by the left. They don't even take the time to do a quick fact check of their own statements.

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well organized militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. You fail to understand that statement. Again, the militia is not the same as the uniform army, a standing uniform army posses a threat to the free state.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: The Military

See 47.4 and 47.7

dude; you just need better reading comprehension and to stop appealing to ignorance of the law, like any illegal. 10USC311 is a federal law and enjoys federal supremacy; there is no sanctuary from it.

 

[danielpalos]

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

I'm sorry I missed the part where there's a constitutional amendment for cars... kind of a false equivalency there isn't it?

short attention span? it is about claiming more guns equals less crime, but omitting gun control laws as an effect. the analogy is similar to automobile statistics.

No it is still a false equivalency since there's a constitutional amendment for one telling the government not to infringe, and nothing for the other.

In every single instant, every single instant, a country has implemented some sort of gun ban, murder rates increase. You'd think that just maybe once there'd be some sort of exception to the rule, but there isn't. And it's because of the simple fact that gun control laws do not apply to criminals acting outside of the law. They only apply to law abiding citizens, constricting their ability to defend themselves. Guns in the hands of good people stop crime, whether that person is an officer or homemaker out buying groceries.

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks

FBI Crime Stats Show an Armed Public Is a Safer Public

GUN BANS LEAD TO INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

you don't understand the concept.

auto regulations increased the safety of autos in much the same way gun control laws increase the safety of guns and gun lovers.

I do understand the concept, you do not understand the second amendment. And no gun control laws do nothing for safety of gun owners, only restrict and make their right to bear more difficult.

it isn't about the law, but the disingenuous claim of the right, that they have more morals for free, when more guns are involved, in modern times.

 

[danielpalos]

Certainly, it would be nice to have the greatest amount of free choice and liberty for adults; no prohibition, no identity cards or controls, no pollution and poisoning imposed upon the innocent, etc. Rational people know that carrying firearms all the time is unnecessary (with tendencies to paranoia) and dangerous.

not to mention, an increase in accidents due to more, rather than less, non-well regulated militia having access to guns.

And now accidental death by gun...again, from the CDC....notice again that as more Americans owned and carried guns the rate has gone down, not up......you are wrong...

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....486

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

due to gun control laws.

no. It's due to more guns in the hands of more responsible people

Why no posse duty registry, so gun lovers can love their guns in public, with no problem.

You are dodging the question.

i am on the left, not the right. the right is not advocating for a posse duty registry or a militia registry, and the Only "gun" registries needed in our several and sovereign, United States.

If you cannot provide some specific examples of "gun lovers" complaining about "posse duty" why don't you just say so?

You statement remains a ridiculous unsupported assertion until you quote some of these gun lovers complaining about "posse duty". Personally I have never in my 49 years on this Earth heard a single person complain about "posse duty. And apparently neither have you.

they always complain about having to muster. i have already asked them; why not ask them yourself, instead of appealing to ignorance or a potential fallacy on my part, for political purposes?

really you have asked every gun owner about posse duty?

do you even know anyone who owns a gun?

due to more gun control laws that put more guns into more responsible hands.

 

[danielpalos]

This should be obvious to anyone who understands the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and how we catch criminals.......if you are a law abiding citizen, you should be able to carry a gun either concealed or open......in any state in the union without fear of arrest or prosecution...why don't you anti gunners get that?

I have worked in hosptals almost all of my adult life-------I have seen mothers lying on the emergency room floor screaming (some kid found dad's gun)

Yeah.......out of 357 million guns in private hands about 50 kids a year have that happen.........and the relevance to this thread would be?

That you don't give a f**k about 50 kids?

so tell me how is restricting my ability to own and/ or carry guns going to stop a kid from getting killed accidentally?

the kid won't get accidentally killed, with your weapon.

 

[danielpalos]

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

Oh I wasn't referring to the "people" part, but to the subordinate clause at the beginning.

Nor do you have the text quite right.

Clearly the first comma is superfluous and we can disregard it. Which leaves:

"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."

Which means:

"Given (the premise that) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore..."

It's a conditional clause. "If A, then B".

That's not the weird part though. The weird part is --------------------------- why is it even there?
No other Amendment anywhere feels the need to explain or justify itself. Why this one, alone among all of them? A Constitution simply declares "this is how it's gonna be". It has no need to explain anything. And yet ----- there it is.

That does not change the amendment. Given that well regulated militias are necessary it is the right of the people to bear arms.

No matter how you parse the first statement, the right is STILL protected for the people.

Only for the People who are a well regulated militia, for the security needs of a free State.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

The right wing wants to eliminate sanctuary cities for illegals. 10USC311 is also federal law and enjoys federal supremacy.

the militia IS the people therefore the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

That particular phrase has never been satisfactorily explained. And prollly cannot be.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

 

[irosie91]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

"well regulated militia of da people" white or red?

 

[Muhammed]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now at the time this amendment was passed, there was a clear difference between the uniform military and the militia. Not to mention the word PEOPLE, not military, not militia, was used. The people was used for a reason, and it was not strictly the military or strictly the militia that had the right to bear arms in the first 200 years of this country...so have we just got this amendment wrong for the 200 years? Language in a court is quite clear using the word PEOPLE. But did our founding fathers...who had a problem with a standing army, actually mean for the army or the locally organized militia to only have the right to bear arms?

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

 

[sakinago]

No.....as actual facts show, from the CDC and the FBI, as more Americans own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down by 47%....and our accident rates went down as well...you are just wrong.

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

And you are wrong. The actual stats say everything.......

the actual stats don't claim they operate in a vacuum of special pleading; regulations can account for the decrease.

No....since we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense with most states not allowing it, to now every state having some form of carry ability and 15 million people, minimum, carrying guns for self defense......and not one law you point to that was passed in 1993 can be shown to have stopped criminals from getting guns......

yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.

Where are you're numbers, since 2005 guns sales have increased and the drop in crime has coincided with that. Where are the gun control laws that coincide with drops in crime rates? Should be easy to look up. I've already posted my numbers

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

"well regulated militia of da people" white or red?

well regulated militia of da People; the unorganized militia of da People is not necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

yes, that is exactly what it means; i don't need to lie; i have a good argument.

 

[danielpalos]

actual facts are we have gun control laws on the books that we didn't have before. it is like safety regulations for autos. only the right wing, is that disingenuous.

And you are wrong. The actual stats say everything.......

the actual stats don't claim they operate in a vacuum of special pleading; regulations can account for the decrease.

No....since we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense with most states not allowing it, to now every state having some form of carry ability and 15 million people, minimum, carrying guns for self defense......and not one law you point to that was passed in 1993 can be shown to have stopped criminals from getting guns......

yes; regulations account for the decrease, just like they do for auto safety.

Where are you're numbers, since 2005 guns sales have increased and the drop in crime has coincided with that. Where are the gun control laws that coincide with drops in crime rates? Should be easy to look up. I've already posted my numbers

gun control laws have been around since 2005.

you are welcome prove which specific regulation improved auto safety.

 

[sakinago]

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, likes to manufacture, right wing fantasy.

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

Again if your questioning the meaning of the 2nd, look up what the founders said about it at the time, it's that simple. Also see how it was put into practice at the time...BTW your English is getting much better Muhammad. I've already posted writings from the founders at the time

 

[danielpalos]

Yes the people are. And they have a right to bear arms.

Your statement does nothing to change that reality.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

Again if your questioning the meaning of the 2nd, look up what the founders said about it at the time, it's that simple. Also see how it was put into practice at the time...BTW your English is getting much better Muhammad. I've already posted writings from the founders at the time

The People are the Militia. Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia of the People.

 

[FA_Q2]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.

You do not seem to know what regulated even meant when the amendment was written but that is immaterial as well. The amendment does not say that the well regulated militia's right to bear arms shall not be infringed - it states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as you have tried to frame it, the militia that consists of ALL the people except for a few public officials.

it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and therefore, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing arms for their State or the Union.

No, that is not what it says. You are lying again.

Again if your questioning the meaning of the 2nd, look up what the founders said about it at the time, it's that simple. Also see how it was put into practice at the time...BTW your English is getting much better Muhammad. I've already posted writings from the founders at the time

The People are the Militia. Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia of the People.

And yet the right is not protected for the well regulated militia. It is protected for the people. A word that you continuously demand that everyone ignore so that you can reject the actual meaning of the second amendment.