Question.Can Anyone Name A State That Will Vote To Give Up Thier Leagal Firearms?

[Asclepias]

You mean the human english?

Our founders were Brits before Americans. They adopted lots of common law. One was the right to own arms. But, it is also a natural right.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the powers of Congress in legislating or regulating guns. It was supposed to be a power reserved by the States.

But, we have allowed it to go so long that it's all fucked up now.

Guns arent natural. The only natural right we have is the right to protect ourselves or kill ourselves.

The statement in the 2nd is clearly saying the right to have a gun is because they needed a militia. The militia is now the state National Guard.

 

[miketx]

Although Blue States in general vote for Democrats no matter how it affects the economy of thier state.But overall,lets say most households have guns for protection reasons.And now we have Liberals asking us to vote to take away thier guns.So are there any red or purple states out there who will gladly vote to give up thier guns?

I would gladly vote to fund a better education for you. It does not help your case when you can't put together a coherent sentence.

Classic troll attack.

Regressive liberal ROE


1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to.

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies. Smoke spin deflect

3. Ignore any facts presented.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence.

6. Employ misdirection,

6a. smear people

6b. attack religion

6c. attack their rationality.

7. Lie, make false assumptions

8. Play race/gender card/misogynist card

9. Play gay/lesbian card

10. Play the Nazi/Fascist/bigot card

11. Make up stuff/So you got nothing?

12. Deny constantly

13. Reword and repeat

14. Pretending not to understand, playing ignorant/what did I lie about

15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.

16. Russia

17. Fox News/Alex Jones/Brietbart/infowars/Stormfront/Gateway/hannity

18. You can’t read.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.

I agree in part. The District is not a state. For that reason, I still question whether the Court has actually declared the right to bear arms within the privileges and immunities of the 14th Amendment. Everyone stops short of that conclusion, which is frustrating as hell.

 

[cnm]

Pre-existing individual right. Thus, "the right of the people".

Based on the need for a militia, not personal self defence.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not sure there is an effort for any state to give up their guns. That's just more NRA propaganda. There are hopes to regulate who buys certain guns, or even the possibility of limiting which guns are manufactured, but widespread confiscation is just bullshit. I don't care where you heard it.

No...it isn't bullshit...it is just a matter of how much political power they have....that is why they want registration now, so that later they can ban and confiscate without warning anyone so they can hide their guns...

Oh, shut up. Anyone who says mass shootings aren't a problem has no credibility anyway.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Guns arent natural. The only natural right we have is the right to protect ourselves or kill ourselves.

I agree that the natural right is to protect oneself or kill oneself. The natural right is by any means, including technological advancements, such as guns.

The statement in the 2nd is clearly saying the right to have a gun is because they needed a militia. The militia is now the state guards.

That is an improper reading of the amendment. It stated a purpose for limiting Congress. Nothing more. It was not intended to limit States. It was specifically and expressly intended to reserve that power to States.

Because of Heller and other cases, the water is muddy as ****. We're not sure if States can restrict the right to a near or complete ban. It sounds like neither States, nor the Federal government have that power, which is fine with me.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Predicated on the need for a militia, not personal self defence.

Wrong. Look at English common law at the time. A militia had nothing to do with the right. The PURPOSE of reserving that right to the States was a militia, but a militia did not predicate ANYTHING.

 

[2aguy]

I'm not sure there is an effort for any state to give up their guns. That's just more NRA propaganda. There are hopes to regulate who buys certain guns, or even the possibility of limiting which guns are manufactured, but widespread confiscation is just bullshit. I don't care where you heard it.

No...it isn't bullshit...it is just a matter of how much political power they have....that is why they want registration now, so that later they can ban and confiscate without warning anyone so they can hide their guns...

Oh, shut up. Anyone who says mass shootings aren't a problem has no credibility anyway.

There are 320 million people in this country.....the most people murdered in one mass public shooting in this country was 58....

A rental truck in Nice, France murdered 86.

Lawn mowers kill more people each year than each year of mass public shootings except for 2017. That is 35 years of lawn mowers killing more people each year than mass shooters...

Knives murder more people than all mass shootings in this country in the last 35 years.....795 murderd in mass shootings in 35 years, knives murder over 1,600 every year.


Clubs murder more people each year than all mass shootings each year....

Cars kill more people than all gun murders every single year.....

Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminals and often mass public shooters....

As more AMericans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down...

So no....in the grand scheme of ways to die in this country, mass pubic shootings are not an issue.

 

[cnm]

Wrong.

Edited.

 

[BULLDOG]

There are probably more guns in cali than any state in the union besides texas.

Maybe so. However, California is a very blue state. It there are more anti-gunners than gunners, then the state could vote to give up guns....if that pesky 2nd amendment weren’t in the way.

And if Grandma had balls, she would be Grandpa. Only an idiot would think that might happen. Most people don't oppose gun ownership. They oppose gun ownership by idiots.

Which is every gun owner according to some and if you deny this then you deny reality.

Look, there is a faction in America that want this country government to repeal the Second Amendment and adopt gun laws like Norway, and usually they are the same individual that studied some liberal arts major and believe society owes them something.

So let not pretend there is no movement on the fringe left to abolish the Second Amendment but I am realistic and know the left lack the votes in the Senate and the States to repeal that Amendment so this discussion is moot.

There is no credible effort to do that. There is no possibility that will happen. You are more childish than a kid worrying about a monster under the bed.

Wow, I just said it is impossible and here you come with your typical response!

So you deny the fact that there are fringers wanting to repeal the Second Amendment?

If so then you are either lying or just playing stupid!

Also the Florida school shooting along with the Club shooting could have been prevented but were not, so use the damn laws on the books and stop asking for more!

The truth is you are the kind that would prefer to rip the Constitution up when it does not fit your agenda in life, so let me write that!

Also it is the ignorance of those like you that believe Mass shootings and gun violence is out of control when I have a better chance of dying because those like you do not obey traffic laws than being killed by some mass shooter.

So let cut the nonsense and also go **** yourself for your comment because I am not the one wanting more laws that will not do jack shit except give you the false sense of security!

There are fringers who claim the earth is flat, and that the moon landing didn't happen. That is no reason to believe we are in danger of the history books and science books will be changed to reflect their beliefs. Some fringers don't want any guns. That is no reason to believe we are in danger of having our guns confiscated. Quit looking under your bed for the dreaded GUN GRABBERS. They aren't real.

 

[cnm]

A militia had nothing to do with the right. The PURPOSE of reserving that right to the States was a militia,

In which case a militia had a lot to do with the right.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not sure there is an effort for any state to give up their guns. That's just more NRA propaganda. There are hopes to regulate who buys certain guns, or even the possibility of limiting which guns are manufactured, but widespread confiscation is just bullshit. I don't care where you heard it.

No...it isn't bullshit...it is just a matter of how much political power they have....that is why they want registration now, so that later they can ban and confiscate without warning anyone so they can hide their guns...

Oh, shut up. Anyone who says mass shootings aren't a problem has no credibility anyway.

There are 320 million people in this country.....the most people murdered in one mass public shooting in this country was 58....

A rental truck in Nice, France murdered 86.

Lawn mowers kill more people each year than each year of mass public shootings except for 2017. That is 35 years of lawn mowers killing more people each year than mass shooters...

Knives murder more people than all mass shootings in this country in the last 35 years.....795 murderd in mass shootings in 35 years, knives murder over 1,600 every year.


Clubs murder more people each year than all mass shootings each year....

Cars kill more people than all gun murders every single year.....

Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminals and often mass public shooters....

As more AMericans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down...

So no....in the grand scheme of ways to die in this country, mass pubic shootings are not an issue.

What ever you say, Boo Boo.

 

[miketx]

Pre-existing individual right. Thus, "the right of the people".

Based on the need for a militia, not personal self defence.

It don't matter what lies and half truths the left craps out. Many many of us simply won't give up any guns. Period. Do what they will.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In which case a militia had a lot to do with the right

Assume you are correct. The 2nd Amendment is still a ban on Congressional authority over firearms or any arms for that matter, correct?

 

[2aguy]

You mean the human english?

Our founders were Brits before Americans. They adopted lots of common law. One was the right to own arms. But, it is also a natural right.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the powers of Congress in legislating or regulating guns. It was supposed to be a power reserved by the States.

But, we have allowed it to go so long that it's all fucked up now.

Guns arent natural. The only natural right we have is the right to protect ourselves or kill ourselves.

The statement in the 2nd is clearly saying the right to have a gun is because they needed a militia. The militia is now the state National Guard.

You anti gunners...you need to read the Heller decision......they explain it so that even dumb ass gun grabbers like you can understand it....


Wrong....now you did it...I have to break out Heller......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’” J. Bishop,

Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4 1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

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

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

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


As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. 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

 

[2aguy]

Maybe so. However, California is a very blue state. It there are more anti-gunners than gunners, then the state could vote to give up guns....if that pesky 2nd amendment weren’t in the way.

And if Grandma had balls, she would be Grandpa. Only an idiot would think that might happen. Most people don't oppose gun ownership. They oppose gun ownership by idiots.

Which is every gun owner according to some and if you deny this then you deny reality.

Look, there is a faction in America that want this country government to repeal the Second Amendment and adopt gun laws like Norway, and usually they are the same individual that studied some liberal arts major and believe society owes them something.

So let not pretend there is no movement on the fringe left to abolish the Second Amendment but I am realistic and know the left lack the votes in the Senate and the States to repeal that Amendment so this discussion is moot.

There is no credible effort to do that. There is no possibility that will happen. You are more childish than a kid worrying about a monster under the bed.

Wow, I just said it is impossible and here you come with your typical response!

So you deny the fact that there are fringers wanting to repeal the Second Amendment?

If so then you are either lying or just playing stupid!

Also the Florida school shooting along with the Club shooting could have been prevented but were not, so use the damn laws on the books and stop asking for more!

The truth is you are the kind that would prefer to rip the Constitution up when it does not fit your agenda in life, so let me write that!

Also it is the ignorance of those like you that believe Mass shootings and gun violence is out of control when I have a better chance of dying because those like you do not obey traffic laws than being killed by some mass shooter.

So let cut the nonsense and also go **** yourself for your comment because I am not the one wanting more laws that will not do jack shit except give you the false sense of security!

There are fringers who claim the earth is flat, and that the moon landing didn't happen. That is no reason to believe we are in danger of the history books and science books will be changed to reflect their beliefs. Some fringers don't want any guns. That is no reason to believe we are in danger of having our guns confiscated. Quit looking under your bed for the dreaded GUN GRABBERS. They aren't real.

The Germans in the 1920s didn't think so either when they registered their guns....in the 1930s when those registration lists were used to ban and confiscate guns...and their owners were sent to gas chambers, it was a little late to say "I told you so."

 

[2aguy]

In which case a militia had a lot to do with the right

Assume you are correct. The 2nd Amendment is still a ban on Congressional authority over firearms or any arms for that matter, correct?

Don't assume anything with an anti gunner...they lie...they lie about every aspect of the gun debate.......

 

[BULLDOG]

And if Grandma had balls, she would be Grandpa. Only an idiot would think that might happen. Most people don't oppose gun ownership. They oppose gun ownership by idiots.

Which is every gun owner according to some and if you deny this then you deny reality.

Look, there is a faction in America that want this country government to repeal the Second Amendment and adopt gun laws like Norway, and usually they are the same individual that studied some liberal arts major and believe society owes them something.

So let not pretend there is no movement on the fringe left to abolish the Second Amendment but I am realistic and know the left lack the votes in the Senate and the States to repeal that Amendment so this discussion is moot.

There is no credible effort to do that. There is no possibility that will happen. You are more childish than a kid worrying about a monster under the bed.

Wow, I just said it is impossible and here you come with your typical response!

So you deny the fact that there are fringers wanting to repeal the Second Amendment?

If so then you are either lying or just playing stupid!

Also the Florida school shooting along with the Club shooting could have been prevented but were not, so use the damn laws on the books and stop asking for more!

The truth is you are the kind that would prefer to rip the Constitution up when it does not fit your agenda in life, so let me write that!

Also it is the ignorance of those like you that believe Mass shootings and gun violence is out of control when I have a better chance of dying because those like you do not obey traffic laws than being killed by some mass shooter.

So let cut the nonsense and also go **** yourself for your comment because I am not the one wanting more laws that will not do jack shit except give you the false sense of security!

There are fringers who claim the earth is flat, and that the moon landing didn't happen. That is no reason to believe we are in danger of the history books and science books will be changed to reflect their beliefs. Some fringers don't want any guns. That is no reason to believe we are in danger of having our guns confiscated. Quit looking under your bed for the dreaded GUN GRABBERS. They aren't real.

The Germans in the 1920s didn't think so either when they registered their guns....in the 1930s when those registration lists were used to ban and confiscate guns...and their owners were sent to gas chambers, it was a little late to say "I told you so."

You bet. Give me a call when you see gas chambers being built.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Don't assume anything with an anti gunner...they lie...they lie about every aspect of the gun debate.......

They do, but I am trying to talk sense to this one.

 

[2aguy]

Guns arent natural. The only natural right we have is the right to protect ourselves or kill ourselves.

I agree that the natural right is to protect oneself or kill oneself. The natural right is by any means, including technological advancements, such as guns.

The statement in the 2nd is clearly saying the right to have a gun is because they needed a militia. The militia is now the state guards.

That is an improper reading of the amendment. It stated a purpose for limiting Congress. Nothing more. It was not intended to limit States. It was specifically and expressly intended to reserve that power to States.

Because of Heller and other cases, the water is muddy as ****. We're not sure if States can restrict the right to a near or complete ban. It sounds like neither States, nor the Federal government have that power, which is fine with me.

No...the water is not muddy at all......


This is not muddy....


Heller:





-------
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.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.