Perfect example for 2nd amendment rights.

[P@triot]

NO ONE is required to belong to a MILITIA to exercise their second amendment rights

You speak the truth, RetiredGySgt. A right does not require a person to belong to a group nor does it require any other type of action. The only “requirement” for a constitutional right is that one be a U.S. citizen.

 

[P@triot]

We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems in our free States.

Actually, a free state drastically increases security problems. That’s the trade off. If you want security, move to an oppressive police state.

You can have Fidel Castro and Cuba. I’ll take the problems that come with freedom any day.

 

[Slade3200]

No shit Sherlock, this conversation is obviously over your head. Just give it up, you are not getting it

You ******* retard you keep bringing up the militia in this conversation like somehow it is important.

I asked about the well regulated militia once as we were speaking about the second amendment and dupes like you kept dodging an answer so I kept asking. P@triot and 2aguy are the only ones that have provided direct answers to direct questions. Even though I disagree with them in many areas I respect their ideas and how they engage. You and your kind on the other hand, avoid, deflect, pivot, lie and then just resort to insults. It’s pathetic. Grow up.

Militias have NOTHING to do with our rights under the 2nd amendment retard. You keep pretending otherwise as to US Government law and Militia every male 17 to 45 is in the unorganized militia and the law does not require training drilling mustering or any other action. Which you already know most likely, so stop wasting our time with questions in this thread that have NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment.

First off, why are you so damn defensive and angry. Go take a few deep breaths and calm the **** down. We are just having a conversation. Second, the second amendment is literally one sentence...

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.

This can be interpreted in many ways so when I bring up the militia for discussion and you get all pissy and try to dismiss it after several dodge and pivots then it just makes you look bad. Honestly what are you so frustrated about?

The Supreme Court ruled that the ONLY part of that sentence that matterd was the part with the right of the people, you are trying to claim otherwise and I won't have it. NO ONE is required to belong to a MILITIA to exercise their second amendment rights , A militia is totally ignored by the Supreme Court ruling stating it was just one of many reasons one might CHOOSE to exercise their rights. You bring it up in the manner you did in an effort to claim that if the Well regulated part was ignored we did not have a right under the second, you are WRONG.

Well now we are moving towards an answer, it’s too bad it took so long for you to get here. So we are going to move from the constitution and on to Supreme Court rulings, is that right? Since the Supreme Court ruled that the only part of the second amendment that really matters is the last part then the rest can be ignored. Is that where you stand?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You ******* retard you keep bringing up the militia in this conversation like somehow it is important.

I asked about the well regulated militia once as we were speaking about the second amendment and dupes like you kept dodging an answer so I kept asking. P@triot and 2aguy are the only ones that have provided direct answers to direct questions. Even though I disagree with them in many areas I respect their ideas and how they engage. You and your kind on the other hand, avoid, deflect, pivot, lie and then just resort to insults. It’s pathetic. Grow up.

Militias have NOTHING to do with our rights under the 2nd amendment retard. You keep pretending otherwise as to US Government law and Militia every male 17 to 45 is in the unorganized militia and the law does not require training drilling mustering or any other action. Which you already know most likely, so stop wasting our time with questions in this thread that have NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment.

First off, why are you so damn defensive and angry. Go take a few deep breaths and calm the **** down. We are just having a conversation. Second, the second amendment is literally one sentence...

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.

This can be interpreted in many ways so when I bring up the militia for discussion and you get all pissy and try to dismiss it after several dodge and pivots then it just makes you look bad. Honestly what are you so frustrated about?

The Supreme Court ruled that the ONLY part of that sentence that matterd was the part with the right of the people, you are trying to claim otherwise and I won't have it. NO ONE is required to belong to a MILITIA to exercise their second amendment rights , A militia is totally ignored by the Supreme Court ruling stating it was just one of many reasons one might CHOOSE to exercise their rights. You bring it up in the manner you did in an effort to claim that if the Well regulated part was ignored we did not have a right under the second, you are WRONG.

Well now we are moving towards an answer, it’s too bad it took so long for you to get here. So we are going to move from the constitution and on to Supreme Court rulings, is that right? Since the Supreme Court ruled that the only part of the second amendment that really matters is the last part then the rest can be ignored. Is that where you stand?

The English language says it can be ignored you loon, the Supreme Court just made it official.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't care if convicted felons or the adjudicated mentally ill are barred from owning firearms. Never did

IMO we are going about the whole gun control thing all wrong anyway.

We do not enforce the laws we have and those laws are not harsh enough instead we step on the rights of people who have done nothing wrong,

You want stop gun crimes? So do I. But telling me and millions of other people who do not commit crimes we don't have the right to own certain firearms is not going to do it

That’s totally fine and it’s a fair debate to have. But what multiplies the problem is when it takes a day and dozens of repetitions to get a simple answer from you. You can’t simply say that you support a certain degree of regulation when it comes to weapons cause you are too dug in on your side. I have to drag it out of you one deflection at a time. How are we to have an productive debate when you act like that?

I answer your questions you just want to nit pick

No you actually don’t, which I clearly point out each time you dodge

Funny how another poster thought my answer was very clear I guess you can't understand

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

 

[Slade3200]

That’s totally fine and it’s a fair debate to have. But what multiplies the problem is when it takes a day and dozens of repetitions to get a simple answer from you. You can’t simply say that you support a certain degree of regulation when it comes to weapons cause you are too dug in on your side. I have to drag it out of you one deflection at a time. How are we to have an productive debate when you act like that?

I answer your questions you just want to nit pick

No you actually don’t, which I clearly point out each time you dodge

Funny how another poster thought my answer was very clear I guess you can't understand

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

 

[Pop23]

I answer your questions you just want to nit pick

No you actually don’t, which I clearly point out each time you dodge

Funny how another poster thought my answer was very clear I guess you can't understand

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I answer your questions you just want to nit pick

No you actually don’t, which I clearly point out each time you dodge

Funny how another poster thought my answer was very clear I guess you can't understand

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

No I answered your question with a full sentence. It's not my problem if you can't understand an answer of more than one word.

 

[Slade3200]

No you actually don’t, which I clearly point out each time you dodge

Funny how another poster thought my answer was very clear I guess you can't understand

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

 

[danielpalos]

I want to keep and bear an AR; where do i muster to get weapons qualified?

 

[Pop23]

Funny how another poster thought my answer was very clear I guess you can't understand

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

I can't help the helpless

 

[Skull Pilot]

Funny how another poster thought my answer was very clear I guess you can't understand

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

 

[2aguy]

Again for the slow and amazingly STUPID, a militia has NOTHING to do with the right to keep possess and use firearms.

No shit Sherlock, this conversation is obviously over your head. Just give it up, you are not getting it

You ******* retard you keep bringing up the militia in this conversation like somehow it is important.

I asked about the well regulated militia once as we were speaking about the second amendment and dupes like you kept dodging an answer so I kept asking. P@triot and 2aguy are the only ones that have provided direct answers to direct questions. Even though I disagree with them in many areas I respect their ideas and how they engage. You and your kind on the other hand, avoid, deflect, pivot, lie and then just resort to insults. It’s pathetic. Grow up.

Militias have NOTHING to do with our rights under the 2nd amendment retard. You keep pretending otherwise as to US Government law and Militia every male 17 to 45 is in the unorganized militia and the law does not require training drilling mustering or any other action. Which you already know most likely, so stop wasting our time with questions in this thread that have NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment.

First off, why are you so damn defensive and angry. Go take a few deep breaths and calm the **** down. We are just having a conversation. Second, the second amendment is literally one sentence...

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.

This can be interpreted in many ways so when I bring up the militia for discussion and you get all pissy and try to dismiss it after several dodge and pivots then it just makes you look bad. Honestly what are you so frustrated about?

It was already dealt with in D.C. v. Heller.......we have an individual right to own and carry guns separate from militia service..

 

[2aguy]

You ******* retard you keep bringing up the militia in this conversation like somehow it is important.

I asked about the well regulated militia once as we were speaking about the second amendment and dupes like you kept dodging an answer so I kept asking. P@triot and 2aguy are the only ones that have provided direct answers to direct questions. Even though I disagree with them in many areas I respect their ideas and how they engage. You and your kind on the other hand, avoid, deflect, pivot, lie and then just resort to insults. It’s pathetic. Grow up.

Militias have NOTHING to do with our rights under the 2nd amendment retard. You keep pretending otherwise as to US Government law and Militia every male 17 to 45 is in the unorganized militia and the law does not require training drilling mustering or any other action. Which you already know most likely, so stop wasting our time with questions in this thread that have NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment.

First off, why are you so damn defensive and angry. Go take a few deep breaths and calm the **** down. We are just having a conversation. Second, the second amendment is literally one sentence...

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.

This can be interpreted in many ways so when I bring up the militia for discussion and you get all pissy and try to dismiss it after several dodge and pivots then it just makes you look bad. Honestly what are you so frustrated about?

The Supreme Court ruled that the ONLY part of that sentence that matterd was the part with the right of the people, you are trying to claim otherwise and I won't have it. NO ONE is required to belong to a MILITIA to exercise their second amendment rights , A militia is totally ignored by the Supreme Court ruling stating it was just one of many reasons one might CHOOSE to exercise their rights. You bring it up in the manner you did in an effort to claim that if the Well regulated part was ignored we did not have a right under the second, you are WRONG.

Well now we are moving towards an answer, it’s too bad it took so long for you to get here. So we are going to move from the constitution and on to Supreme Court rulings, is that right? Since the Supreme Court ruled that the only part of the second amendment that really matters is the last part then the rest can be ignored. Is that where you stand?

Heller dealt with this issue in great detail......the history and legal precedent going back to England...

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

----

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

 

[2aguy]

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

I remember the saying in Basic Training.....you get smart or you get strong, too bad we can't make them do push ups until they understand simple concepts...

 

[Slade3200]

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

I can't help the helpless

You obviously can’t help because you don’t know what you are talking about. If all you have is insults then you are just wasting time

 

[Slade3200]

I’ve asked the question to 5 of you dipshits and all but one has dodged. Of course y’all are backing each other up, doesn’t make you right

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

 

[2aguy]

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

Westwall had an idea in a thread a couple days ago....he said it can already be done...a toll free number where you run the buyers name and drivers license number.....they tell you if they have felony convictions or outstanding warrants....

Done....

No records, no registration, and it costs nothing, and is easy and doesn't target law abiding gun owners....

 

[2aguy]

Just because I didn't give you the yes or no answer you wanted in no way means I dodged any question

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

I would also support a tattoo for violent felons. This tattoo would be given to violent felons who can no longer buy guns, it would be on the shoulder, hidden by a shirt. If you are going to sell a gun to someone, you simply ask to see their shoulder, if they have the tattoo, they aren't allowed to buy...even less fuss and muss than a phone service. This would take care of all background check needs without targeting law abiding gun owners, it wouldn't create a gun registry, and actual felons would be known instantly, at gun stores, gun shows, private sales...everywhere....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That’s exactly what a dodge is.

I understood his answer. We wonder why you don't.

Trolling?

Excellent, then please explain his answer and how it directly addressed my question.

Now read this carefully.

It's OK to follow along with your finger on the screen

And it's even all right to move your lips while you read.

You asked me if I agree with the machine gun restrictions

I said I don't think the additional permit or the additional taxes are necessary and that anyone who can legally buy a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.


We can surmise from this that since the current regulations require both the additional permit and tax as well as passing the background check that I disagree with 2 points of the current law regarding automatic weapons but not all the regulations

Ergo ( that means therefore) One can see the answer to your question was not simply a yes or no

Did you understand that or should I use smaller words?

That’s great, thanks you. I wish you would have simply said that a day ago instead of going round about for pages and pages of posts.

So let’s take away the additional permit and the taxes and look at what is needed for somebody to legally purchase a firearm, which you apparently agree with. What process to determine somebodies legality to sell or purchase a gun to you agree with?

I’m asking with honest intent of learning what your position is BTW. Not trying to lay bait.

I would also support a tattoo for violent felons. This tattoo would be given to violent felons who can no longer buy guns, it would be on the shoulder, hidden by a shirt. If you are going to sell a gun to someone, you simply ask to see their shoulder, if they have the tattoo, they aren't allowed to buy...even less fuss and muss than a phone service. This would take care of all background check needs without targeting law abiding gun owners, it wouldn't create a gun registry, and actual felons would be known instantly, at gun stores, gun shows, private sales...everywhere....

Tattoos can be removed