The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[Tennyson]

There is no causation or correlation between firearm laws and suicide.

 

[rightwinger]

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?

Missed out on the 14th amendment didn't you?

 

[Tennyson]

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?

Missed out on the 14th amendment didn't you?

Which part did I miss out on?

 

[Vandalshandle]

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.

It is, in fact, unreasonable ... just because you say it doesn't make it so.

In fact, if you say it, we can pretty much expect it to be unreasonable.

Well, Spare, then your position that it should be legal to sell a gun to a man who is both a felon and under a restraining order for threatening his wife's life, pretty much makes it a no brainer that I have nothing more to say to you on the subject.

 

[ding]

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. See?

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[ding]

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

Right, we aren't arguing about that, we are arguing about all of your other arguments.

 

[ding]

According to the FBI's statistics on Crime, in 2014 murders by rifles was 0.12 persons per 100,000 people.

OK. Let's just ban handguns

I thought you said you didn't want to ban guns at all?

You convinced me otherwise

You are hilarious. Most trolls are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.

It is, in fact, unreasonable ... just because you say it doesn't make it so.

In fact, if you say it, we can pretty much expect it to be unreasonable.

Wrong.

Background checks and prohibiting felons from possessing firearms are perfectly reasonable and Constitutional, because the Supreme Court makes it so:

“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Ibid

Conditions and qualifications such as background checks, consistently upheld as not violating the Second Amendment by the courts.

And save the lame, ignorant references to Dred Scott, Plessey v. Fergusson, the inane ‘argument’ that sometimes the Supreme Court is ‘wrong’ – that fails as a false comparison fallacy, having nothing whatsoever to do with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[ding]

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

 

[ding]

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?

Missed out on the 14th amendment didn't you?

I doubt Tennyson misses anything on legality or history. Tennyson has already schooled you on the 14th. Are you seriously coming back for more? The last time you ran with your tail tucked between your legs, lol.

 

[Yarddog]

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

They also lynched about 1000 + republicans during the struggle for civil rights but those are all but forgotten victims of the democratic KKK

 

[ding]

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

They also lynched about 1000 + republicans during the struggle for civil rights but those are all but forgotten victims of the democratic KKK

There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Black political participation in Reconstruction | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

"Blacks made up the overwhelming majority of southern Republican voters, forming a coalition with “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags” (derogatory terms referring to recent arrivals from the North and southern white Republicans, respectively). A total of 265 African-American delegates were elected, more than 100 of whom had been born into slavery. Almost half of the elected black delegates served in South Carolina and Louisiana, where blacks had the longest history of political organization; in most other states, African Americans were underrepresented compared to their population. In all, 16 African Americans served in the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction; more than 600 more were elected to the state legislatures, and hundreds more held local offices across the South."

Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

"In almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party’s achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn’t elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!"

"By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan). This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard. But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party."

September 3, 1868

25 African-Americans in the Georgia legislature, all Republicans, were expelled by the Democrat majority. They were later reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

September 12, 1868

Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in the Georgia Senate – all Republicans – were expelled by the Democrat majority. They were later be reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

October 7, 1868

Republicans denounce the Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.

October 22, 1868

While campaigning for re-election, U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who were organized as the Ku Klux Klan.

December 10, 1869

Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs First-in-nation law granting women the right to vote and to hold public office.

February 3, 1870

After passing the U.S. House of Representatives with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, the Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, which granted the right to vote to all Americans regardless of race.



May 31, 1870

President Ulysses S. Grant signs the Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving civil rights to any Americans.

June 22, 1870

The Republican-controlled Congress creates the U.S. Department of Justice to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.

September 6, 1870

Women vote in Wyoming during the first election after women’s suffrage legislation was signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.

February 28, 1871

Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.

April 20, 1871

The Republican-controlled Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.

October 10, 1871

Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against blacks voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto was murdered by a Democratic Party operative, and his military funeral was attended by thousands.

October 18, 1871

After violence was committed against Republicans in South Carolina, Republican President Ulysses S. Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.

November 18, 1872

Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”.

January 17, 1874

Armed Democrats seize the Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate the Texas government.

September 14, 1874

Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow the racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg. 27 people were killed.


March 1, 1875

The Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, was signed by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. The law passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.


"Black men participated in Georgia politics for the first time during Congressional Reconstruction (1867-76). Between 1867 and 1872 sixty-nine African Americans served as delegates to the constitutional convention (1867-68) or as members of the state legislature.


Democrats used terror, intimidation, and the Ku Klux Klan to "redeem" the state. One quarter of the black legislators were killed, threatened, beaten, or jailed. In the December 1870 elections the Democrats won an overwhelming victory. In 1906 W. H. Rogers from McIntosh County was the last black legislator to be elected before blacks were legally disenfranchised in 1908."

Black Legislators during Reconstruction


"One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation…. Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.” An issue of Harper’s Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”"

"The Klan’s primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out “push cards” -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) “Radicals” of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.


By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!


There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan."


Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

 

[Skull Pilot]

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.

Nice change of subject
I never said anything about not having background checks did I?
And it already is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to own one

But for anyone who passes background checks as I have multiple times there is no valid reason to tell me I can't own a specific semiautomatic rifle or a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's only because you believe suicides are gun deaths instead of suicides. A sure sign of too much estrogen. You may want to cut back on soy products in your diet.

Dead is dead.....Boom
Brains all over the place

Thank God for the second amendment

The second amendment has nothing to do with suicides in fact more than half of all suicides are committed with means other than guns

Suicide is a choice not a crime

Yet guns are such an effective tool. Less than one percent of attempts are non fatal. Take an overdose of pills and you have an hour to change your mind. Pull a trigger and you have a split second

So what?

Suicide is a choice not a crime

So there is no reason to encourage it

Guns don't encourage suicide more than half of all suicides are committed without guns

 

[Skull Pilot]

And seriously what are the odds of that happening?

3 or 4 out of 350 million

That is not a compelling enough reason to deny law abiding people any size magazine for their weapons they want

People who own guns, follow every law and are responsible in their ownership are not responsible for the crimes of another

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"

Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?

It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.

And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future

 

[Skull Pilot]

No. The right to defend one's self family and property should not be left to the whim of the States. That is a right on par with every other right enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot and has no legal obligation to protect you, your family or your property

God bless America!

A country built on the rights of states to set there own rules. There is no need for Federal gun laws......Militias are obsolete

Let the states decide how much control they need over guns

Great so let's repeal the entire bill of rights and let the states handle all of it

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

I was using sarcasm to refute the idioticsuggestion that the second amendment should be abolished and gun ownership left to the states

 

[rightwinger]

Let's just drop the second and third amendments. They are not needed

States can more than handle it

States can handle all of them

SO why have the Bill of Rights at all?

The right to defend one's self, family and property is as fundamental as the right to free speech

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

You mean the part about how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, racism and segregation? No. I didn't miss that part at all. Are you ready to apologize for it yet?

Amazing how you confuse a North/South issue with partisan politics

You failed American History didn't you?

 

[rightwinger]

The Bill of Rights exists to safeguard the protected liberties of all the people, of the citizens who reside in the many states, from their fellow citizens who might seek to disadvantage other citizens for unwarranted, capricious reasons.

Indeed, the majority may not use the Federal government, nor any state government, to violate the rights and protected liberties of a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are.

In fact, state governments have exhibited a disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment safeguard the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense.

As is the case with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[]” (DC v. Heller), such as the purpose of ‘overthrowing’ through ‘force of arms’ a lawfully installed government functioning with the consent of the people, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the federal government from infringing individual rights and state’s rights.

The Second Amendment is an absolute right regarding the federal government. The state governments have not shown a “disturbing propensity to violate the rights of American citizens who reside in the states.”

Amazing....you missed out on that slavery and civil rights thing.

What did I miss out on? That slavery is not in the Constitution, that civil rights are not under the purview of the federal government, or that the civil rights acts violates two of the three most basic unalienable rights in the Fifth Amendment?

Missed out on the 14th amendment didn't you?

I doubt Tennyson misses anything on legality or history. Tennyson has already schooled you on the 14th. Are you seriously coming back for more? The last time you ran with your tail tucked between your legs, lol.

He did?

Maybe he needs to "school" the Supreme Court on the 14th too

 

[Vandalshandle]

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.

Nice change of subject
I never said anything about not having background checks did I?
And it already is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to own one

But for anyone who passes background checks as I have multiple times there is no valid reason to tell me I can't own a specific semiautomatic rifle or a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity

It is not against the law for you to sell your gun to a stranger with no questions asked, unless you are a licensed dealer.

Since I am a sheriff Aucillary Volunteer, and patrol in uniform in a police car, that puts me squarely on the side of the law. You have clearly stated that it is unreasonable to demand that an individual do a background check on a gun buyer, which only benefits convicted felons, and others that are not able to buy from a licensed dealer. That puts you squarely on the side of the criminal. That being the case, I have no use for further discussion with you, just like I have no need for philosophical discussions with criminals.

 

[Vandalshandle]

God forbid that I take away some yahoo's right to completely wipe out a Deer Crossing sign without his having to reload.

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"

Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?

It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.

And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future

But, it is NOT illegal from you to sell him a gun. Be aware that those of us on the side of civilization believe that you are guilty of accessory to felony homicide if we can prove you knowingly sold to someone who killed someone with it, and by requiring you to do a background check, we would be able to prove it.