So let me get this straight....

[SniperFire]

Medical mistakes cause over 150K deaths in the US every year.. time to ban doctors and of course, Obamacare

For the greater good, of course~

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.

the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.

Go back to the children's table honey... leave the adults alone.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.

the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

As usual, you're wrong.

 

[jillian]

Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.

the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

As usual, you're wrong.

i know exactly what heller says. and the issue of reasonable regulation was not disposed of. in fact, it was specifically left open by the court... you know... if you actually read it and all that.

as usual... YOU are the one who is wrong.

you also failed to link your quote.... i'd suggest reading a decision is much better than reading what someone else says the decisino states.

but then again, i'm sure your quote comes from the blogosphere and has zero value.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

As usual, you're wrong.

i know exactly what heller says. and the issue of reasonable regulation was not disposed of. in fact, it was specifically left open by the court... you know... if you actually read it and all that.

as usual... YOU are the one who is wrong.

I did, but that's not what you said asswipe. You pulled the "well regulated militia" shit... and you are wrong. Individuals outside a "well regulated militia" are permitted under the 2nd to own firearms. PERIOD.

 

[DiamondDave]

Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.

the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.

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.

No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference

And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'

I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi

 

[VaYank5150]

THIS is what is wrong with this country. We can't even have a civil discussion about this on a freaking message board....

If gun control is not the answer, what is?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I hear you...all of you on the gun rights side. I do. So, if banning guns or limiting them in some way is not the answer, what is? Or...do we simply accept these tragedies as the norm?

Anyone who would do such a thing is clearly mentally unstable. Start there......

Banning/outlawing/controlling guns is a PLAN. You don't have a plan, and unless you want one created for you, you better come up with one quick....

I don't have a dog in this fight as I am not nor ever will be a gun owner. Having said that I am fond of individual freedom so I say you focus on the cause not the method. Remove one method and another will be substituted.

On the same day a man in China broke into a school and STABBED 22 children. Years ago Tim McVeigh used fertilizer. Terrorists use IED's.

Removing guns won't stop violence

 

[VaYank5150]

Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.

the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.

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.

No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference

And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'

I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi

I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.

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.

No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference

And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'

I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi

I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...

Yes you can. The AR15 can only fire one round at a time. The same as a 9mm. Your wife understand what "semi"automatic means?

 

[DiamondDave]

Medical mistakes cause over 150K deaths in the US every year.. time to ban doctors and of course, Obamacare

Apples and oranges. You are better than this.

The healthcare system as a tool of the doctor.. the gun as a tool of the shooter

Again.. it is ridiculous to try and limit the ability of a law abiding citizen to protect themselves in order to protect them... The weapon/gun is nothing more than a tool... The tool knows not of the intent of the user... it is ridiculous to ban the tool in response to what the user has done

 

[DiamondDave]

the second amendment says guns are permitted as part of a "well-regulated militia". it does not say anything about people owning military weapons as toys. and as the 4th and 1st and other amendments are subject to reasonable regulation, so is the 2nd.

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.

No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference

And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'

I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi

I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...

Bull prunes... hogwash... or whatever other term you wish to use... That is a scared reaction and not a logical one, or one based in reality

 

[P@triot]

Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.

Neither are M-16s or AR-15s. What is your point?

Actually, they are... The right to bear ARMS (that is ALL weapons, including assault weapons - too bad if you don't like it)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only idea I would have is one I've seen in the movies. Put a triggering mechanism on guns that only allow their owners to fire them. But even that idea causes issues

 

[VaYank5150]

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.

No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference

And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'

I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi

I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...

Bull prunes... hogwash... or whatever other term you wish to use... That is a scared reaction and not a logical one, or one based in reality

I disagree. There is logic there. Besides the obvious statement of "because I want one"....what need is there to have a machine gun in your personal possession? I know you don't need it for hunting. And if you aim is so bad that you want the firepower of a machine gun to help protect you from an intruder, then I recommend you go get some training on your hand gun...

 

[liarintheWH]

Medical mistakes cause over 150K deaths in the US every year.. time to ban doctors and of course, Obamacare

Apples and oranges. You are better than this.

Apples and oranges? You're comparing second hand smoke and guns dummy.

 

[VaYank5150]

The only idea I would have is one I've seen in the movies. Put a triggering mechanism on guns that only allow their owners to fire them. But even that idea causes issues

In the Newtown case, this guy probably LEGALLY owned these guns. I have not heard if that was not the case?

 

[martybegan]

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.

No reason has to be given why.. whether it be for them to hunt, protect their homes, or to stroke their naked body against.. it makes no difference

And what many on the progressive left consider 'military' weapons are not anything of the sort.. it is about the LOOK... and not one will put out a definition of what really is an 'assault rifle'

I can kill just as effectively with a hunting rifle as I can an AR-15.. I can kill just as effectively with a 1909 revolver as I can a modern 9mm semi

I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...

Yes you can. The AR15 can only fire one round at a time. The same as a 9mm. Your wife understand what "semi"automatic means?

In fact, in close quarters the 9mm handgun is the superior weapon. You can reload it faster, you can shoot targets closer to you far more easily, and you can shoot two of them at the same time.

 

[VaYank5150]

Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.

Neither are M-16s or AR-15s. What is your point?

Actually, they are... The right to bear ARMS (that is ALL weapons, including assault weapons - too bad if you don't like it)

So....where in the Constitution does it allow our Government to infringe on my right to smoke cigarettes (a legal substance) in a bar?

 

[VaYank5150]

Medical mistakes cause over 150K deaths in the US every year.. time to ban doctors and of course, Obamacare

Apples and oranges. You are better than this.

Apples and oranges? You're comparing second hand smoke and guns dummy.

Both of which are rights. Dummy.