Zone1 One progressive gun control argument is it's meant for the militia

[JGalt]

Ok, so we agree that idiot rednecks, drug dealers, carjackers, gangsters, ect shouldn't have guns.

Lets round them up.

Not too sure about that. Most rednecks I've even known were law-abiding gun owners, unlike the others I mentioned.

 

[DudleySmith]

It doesn't really. The equal protection clause would supercede that. States could determine their own gun laws but those laws would have to apply equally to all their residents.

We're talking about something you have no clue about. It's called 'original intent', which was the case for a long time, like within the first 150 years, plus with gun control being a local option for a long time afterwards, well into the 20th century.

The first ...

Sullivan Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It has been struck down in 2022.

 

[DudleySmith]

Not too sure about that. Most rednecks I've even known were law-abiding gun owners, unlike the others I mentioned.

Those are the ones the commies want to arrest. They never snivel about their ghetto rats and home invaders, of course.

 

[DudleySmith]

They already do that in the big cities that's why all the gang bangers and the elites have the guns. Makes one think the bureaucrats and gang bangers are working together.

And your position doesn't help that at all, it just arms everybody. Cities should have the right to go after guns in hood rat land, and to conduct sweeps when the shootings get out of hand. They should also be able to declare gang membership a crime and round them up on sight.

 

[Curried Goats]

We're talking about something you have no clue about. It's called 'original intent', which was the case for a long time, like within the first 150 years, plus with gun control being a local option for a long time afterwards, well into the 20th century.

The first ...

Sullivan Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It has been struck down in 2022.

You can discuss the original intent of the 2nd Amendment all you like but whatever laws you write now have would have to conform to the limitations of the 2nd and the 14th Amendments.

 

[DudleySmith]

You can discuss the original intent of the 2nd Amendment all you like but whatever laws you write now have would have to conform to the limitations of the 2nd and the 14th Amendments.

Like I said, you're too stupid to make any kind of argument. You don't even understand what I said and the time frame. Try sacrificing some more chickens, maybe throw in a goat once in awhile.

As I've already said, that sort of BS was repealed recently.

Just more evidence of why posting links means nothing here, even those demanding them all the time never read them.

 

[Curried Goats]

Like I said, you're too stupid to make any kind of argument. You don't even understand what I said and the time frame. Try sacrificing some more chickens, maybe throw in a goat once in awhile.

As I've already said, that sort of BS was repealed recently.

Just more evidence of why posting links means nothing here, even those demanding them all the time never read them.

I understand just fine. I understand the original intent of the 2nd was to empower States to muster militias for their own internal security (against slave revolts), in a country without a standing army and an uncertainty from Southern slave States whether Northern States would even vote to send them federal assistance. I'm ok with it going back to being a States rights issue. States would still be subject to the limitations of the 14th.

 

[JustAGuy1]

You make empty, wild-assed threats on the internet. That's stupid, and worse, its humiliating to yourself.

Everyone, and I do mean everyone, knows that internet tough guys are pathetic losers.

Are you sure that's the brand you want to wear?

Sorry son, you are a coward, nothing more.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You feel pretty safe behind that Computer Screen eh?

No one is intimidated by your pathetic bullying.

 

[marvin martian]

Well it is right there in the Amendment itself you know.

Yup, it says "the people". That's us. All of us.

 

[Invisibleflash]

View attachment 923340

We could do that, just like Israel and Switzerland.

Let's make an Amendment to the Constitution making it mandatory everyone of age sign up for selective service and serve in the National Guard (male and/or female) for two years. Additionally it will be a requirement to gain the right to vote and be called a citizen.

BTW: No one will be exempt for serving except baby boomers who will be considered too old. Anyone not a boomer will have to do this, no college exemptions or other such crap and it'll be written in the Amendment that there will be no amnesty if you skip the country to avoid your responsibility.

I made it mandatory for the women also because in Israel and Switzerland they serve because with equal rights come equal responsibility.

SMILE

Only in Conservative States of America. Dems won't go for it. Dems want an army of illegals to disarm America.

 

[Libby von H]

View attachment 923340

We could do that, just like Israel and Switzerland.

Let's make an Amendment to the Constitution making it mandatory everyone of age sign up for selective service and serve in the National Guard (male and/or female) for two years. Additionally it will be a requirement to gain the right to vote and be called a citizen.

BTW: No one will be exempt for serving except baby boomers who will be considered too old. Anyone not a boomer will have to do this, no college exemptions or other such crap and it'll be written in the Amendment that there will be no amnesty if you skip the country to avoid your responsibility.

I made it mandatory for the women also because in Israel and Switzerland they serve because with equal rights come equal responsibility.

SMILE

What is the one thing necessary for rights we have to be lost? ANS that we agree to open them up for discussion
If I said "I have proof your mother was a Nazi camp torturere" would you open it up for discussion NO

 

[there4eyeM]

Universal military service is an enormous waste of money and time. The idea isn't so bad that people learn the necessity of defending freedom, but not this way.
Anyone reasonable realizes modern weapons and the population changes have to be considered in "infringement". As usual, radicals tend to ruin logical discussion.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Universal nation service (not only military) would never pass our Congress.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What is the one thing necessary for rights we have to be lost? ANS that we agree to open them up for discussion
If I said "I have proof your mother was a Nazi camp torturere" would you open it up for discussion NO

You've obviously never met my mother

CHUCKLE

 

[Captain Caveman]

So where does the Second Amendment say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

It doesn't say that. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

American citizens are the militia, and "well regulated" has nothing to do with government oversight or control. During the time period the Second Amendment was written, the term "well regulated" meant "functional" or "in working order."

Guns don't need control, they can't move by themselves, they can't shoot by themselves. What you need is, make folk responsible for themselves, for their own actions. Then if they have the wrong incidents on their police record, or/and on their driving record, or/and on their medical record, they've only got themselves to blame, no one else.

The 2ndA is a crazy bit of paper where you guys forever and a day fight over the wording, and it gives any unsuitable Tom Dick and Harry a gun. Then you all scratch your heads and rub ya balls wondering how so many get shot. It's like watching a Will Hay film.

 

[expat500]

It's like watching a Will Hay film.

lol. I love them.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Where did I say it was?

Oh I see! You want to deny it to the rednecks who choose to exercise that right.

SMILE

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And your position doesn't help that at all, it just arms everybody. Cities should have the right to go after guns in hood rat land, and to conduct sweeps when the shootings get out of hand. They should also be able to declare gang membership a crime and round them up on sight.

Taking the guns away from the law abiding citizens in the big city is part of the problem and arresting them if they do own a gun legally for protecting themselves isn't right either.

I won't condon illegal search and seizures such as you're suggesting.

How do you propose declaring gang membership illegal?

Are you going to arrest some Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Free Masons, Knights Of Columbus, Shriners, Rotarians, etc,... organization just because you consider them part of a gang?

BTW: My solution only arms those who can make it through boot camp.

SMILE

 

[DudleySmith]

I won't condon illegal search and seizures such as you're suggesting.

Nothing illegal about disarming criminals and gangsters, it's just common sense.

How do you propose declaring gang membership illegal?

What is difficult about it? They're criminal conspiracies. We have RICO now. Every gang member is guilty of any crime their fellow gang members commit. They all benefit in some way. It isn't rocket science.

Are you going to arrest some Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Free Masons, Knights Of Columbus, Shriners, Rotarians, etc,... organization just because you consider them part of a gang?

Fake argument. We know the differences, again it isn't rocket science.