The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[2aguy]

JAILS ARE FULL

No......the most violent, and dangerous criminals are being released over and over again by the democrat party.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You’ll always be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG

I feel sorry for you

Cool story.......while you're running away.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you live amongst other people, particularly in a densely populated world, one that qualifies as civilization, all rights come with responsibilities. I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.

Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself. My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights. What is so difficult about that to appreciate?

Yes, there are assholes (on both sides of the aisle) who will always attempt to abuse the rule of law. We saw that on Jan 6 when an army of losers assaulted our Capitol (yours and mine). They did so on the merit of Trump shooting of his mouth about voter fraud while losing 62 court filings on the matter, on merit that a group of nobodies could simply declare themselves the electorate and have one man, the VP, select a new POTUS. WTF?

I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.

I know. My freedom of religion and my freedom of speech may also interfere with your pursuit.
It's a conundrum.

Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself. My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights. What is so difficult about that to appreciate?

I appreciate that.

My right to protect myself also includes making sure you don't abuse my rights.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You're right that my right to keep and bear arms doesn't include the right to intentionally point it at you and shoot you - except in self-defense of myself or others, and in some states of my property. Your rights are secure even when I carry a gun.

Well, we agree on a piece of it, and that's good. I could challenge part of what you wrote, but not wanting to smear that, I'll simply suggest that given effort we might find additional common ground.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I have rights too, starting with the pursuit of happiness. Rambo at the mall, and un-regulated militias, interfere with my pursuit.

I know. My freedom of religion and my freedom of speech may also interfere with your pursuit.
It's a conundrum.

Common sense dictates that you have a right to protect yourself. My right to protect myself includes making sure you don't abuse your rights. What is so difficult about that to appreciate?

I appreciate that.

My right to protect myself also includes making sure you don't abuse my rights.

I can live with that. The devil will still be in the details - but at least we've recognized that there are legitimate points on both sides. Sincerely, it is refreshing to discuss our differences on a civilized level. Thank you.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

What makes you sure of this - especially the "at all times" part?
Who decides if the militia is sufficiently regulated?
What effect does any of this have on my right to keep and bear arms?

As to the first question, what is the point of having something unless it's in a proper state of repair? That said, I would agree that a "militia" is a bit of a relic - given the National Guard and our Standing Military. Your right to protect yourself and bear arms should not be dependent upon participation in something that does not exist. It also should not be dependent upon the grammatically incorrect decision as argued by Scalia. You should trust that Heller is a temporary accommodation.

Your rights should be protected by the rule of law, defined and administered in an even-handed manner. At the same time there needs to be a reasonable effort to reduce the abuse of firearms.

As to the second question, we the people decide, and it serves all of us to recognize that compromise will be necessary from both sides. Why? Because life in the big city is complicated? I'll lean on Ralph Waldo Emerson who said something of the of the following nature: We are an imperfect species and so shall be all of our institutions.

As to the third, I cannot imagine the necessity of much change in the right to keep. I do think there needs to adjustments to the right to bear. Again, it's complicated and it will only be solved by cooler heads willing to compromise.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

No......the most violent, and dangerous criminals are being released over and over again by the democrat party.

Where in the hell do you get this shit?

Political Parties don't release people from prison though elected party members do have obvious influence in both convictions and probation rates.

Follow the below link for a hard dose of reality and quit drinking Trump's Koolaide.

Felony conviction rates are up nationwide. These states are reconsidering how they classify crimes

In recent decades, every state has seen a dramatic increase in the share of its population convicted of a felony, leaving more people facing hurdles in finding a place to live and prompting some states to revisit how they classify crimes.

www.pbs.org

As regards incarceration rates, note that California (a favorite target of reactionaries) is middle of the road.

Note further, that in 2010 more than 15% of the adult population in Georgia was behind bars. Is this because Georgia is tougher on crime or because Georgia breeds more criminals? Either way, something in Georgia is thoroughly insane as in 1 in 6 adults behind bars.

 

[2aguy]

Where in the hell do you get this shit?

Political Parties don't release people from prison though elected party members do have obvious influence in both convictions and probation rates.

Follow the below link for a hard dose of reality and quit drinking Trump's Koolaide.

Felony conviction rates are up nationwide. These states are reconsidering how they classify crimes

In recent decades, every state has seen a dramatic increase in the share of its population convicted of a felony, leaving more people facing hurdles in finding a place to live and prompting some states to revisit how they classify crimes.

www.pbs.org

As regards incarceration rates, note that California (a favorite target of reactionaries) is middle of the road.

Note further, that in 2010 more than 15% of the adult population in Georgia was behind bars. Is this because Georgia is tougher on crime or because Georgia breeds more criminals? Either way, something in Georgia is thoroughly insane as in 1 in 6 adults behind bars.

You are an idiot..........San Francisco just recalled, by a majority of voters, their left wing, Soros prosecutor and other states are now trying to do the same.....

This is just a sample.......

New York...



The Mayor of New York City held a press conference yesterday that was full of fire and brimstone. The cover of the New York Post really says it all. “Mayor’s plea: We took 2,600 guns… But the shooters are back on the streets.”

---

The Mayor is clearly frustrated and it’s reached the point where he feels compelled to point out the obvious. He said, “after the shooting, after the arrest, after being let go — You know what they do? They go do another shooting.” The NYPD is already aware of this because they keep arresting the same people over and over again.

He pointed out that criminals in New York City “no longer believe you can’t do a shooting.” He continued, saying that criminals don’t take criminal justice seriously anymore.

While the Mayor didn’t mention him by name, he was clearly making a reference to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The DA came into office promising to put fewer people behind bars and proceeded to make good on that threat.



NYC Mayor: Our prosecutors are "a laughingstock" of the country



California..



Two days after the Uvalde shooting in Texas, the California State Senate passed a bill that would allow schools not to report threats or attacks against employees to law enforcement.

----

According to the Bill, it would repeal the provision of existing law where it requires that “whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities.”

SB 1273 would then make such reports to law enforcement voluntary.






California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Schools Not to Report Threats to Police

=========



Philly....



This year, though, we’ve jumped the shark. We’re on pace for over 600 murders—the most ever. An Inquirer story last week laid out some even more disturbing findings. Since Krasner took office, the number of gun crime arrests has nearly tripled, but the conviction rate for gun crimes has plunged from 63 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in 2019. In January, I reported that, under Krasner, homicides have jumped a whopping 58 percent; just 21 percent of shootings since 2015 led to criminal charges, and less than one-tenth of those resulted in convictions.

-----



The DA’s own data dashboard shows that, every year of his tenure, Krasner’s office has dismissed or withdrawn more violent cases and gun cases than the year before. In fact, the average annual number of such cases that were dismissed or withdrawn has increased by 85 percent during Krasner’s tenure, compared with the four years before he took office. All of this despite the fact that the police are making more gun arrests than at any time since 2015.



Larry Krasner is losing the battle against homicide. Will voters even care?



New york, 4/25/22



We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements.

There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)



Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind

California...



California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
------------
Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds



New York...



But now he may have a serious problem on his hands in the form of Alvin Bragg, the newly installed District Attorney for Manhattan. Almost immediately upon taking office, Bragg sent out a lengthy memo to all of the prosecutors under his office, issuing instructions that run almost 100% in defiance of the new mayor’s agenda. Prosecutors will be forbidden to seek jail terms for convicts in nearly all cases. In fact, to wind up behind bars at all, you’re probably going to have to literally kill someone or commit one of a handful of other extremely violent crimes. Oh, and almost nobody will be required to post bail. (NY Post)

New Manhattan DA promises to keep "emptying the jails"



Chicago's kim foxx

Chicago mayor, State Attorney Kim Foxx clash over deadly shootout





washington



So why are Washington Democrats offering up a bill in the state legislature to lower the penalties for drive-by shootings? Well, there’s woke and then there’s just plain stupid. Washington state Democrats are vying to become the best stupid they can be, bless ’em.

Currently, Washington law holds that a drive-by shooter should get an aggravated enhancement if he is arrested and prosecuted—and that’s a big if. Such an enhancement could land a drive-by murderer a life prison sentence.

But under a bill proposed for the upcoming Washington state legislature by white, woke ex-con state Rep. Tarra Simmons and her co-sponsor David Hackney, the reduction in penalties is a move toward “racial equity.” That’s right, drive-by shooting prosecutorial outcomes are racist. Never mind all the black and brown people who are the disproportionate victims of drive-by shootings.

Washington State Democrats Want Decreased Penalties for Drive-By Shooters Because... Aw, You Guessed

Minnesota...



colleague Bill Walsh explains:

The presumptive sentences are displayed in a grid that is used by judges to determine the appropriate sentence once someone is convicted of a felony. The y-axis on the grid refers to the severity level of the crime, from low-level assault (1) all the way to murder (11). The x-axis refers to the criminal history score of the perpetrator.

You can follow the link to see the grid.

On Dec. 16, 2021, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission will vote on a proposal to eliminate custody status points from consideration for felony sentences. The commission believes criminals should not be given stronger sentences if they commit more crimes while on probation or parole, or even if they’ve escaped custody. That will mean lower sentences for criminals who commit murder, rape, assault, robbery and felony DWI!

This proposed change would lower presumptive sentences for convicted felons in all categories, with sex criminals getting a special break:

Worse yet, sex offenders currently receive double points for their custody status, so eliminating this part of the grid will disproportionally benefit the worst criminals in our system.

On Crime, Liberals Still Don't Get It





School shooter released in illinois..

She Single-Handedly Stopped a School Shooting, But It Hasn't Been 'Happily Ever After' For Angela McQueen - The Truth About Guns

democrat judge



In Michigan, simply carrying a firearm without a concealed carry license can result in a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, but three teens who broke into a gun store in Saginaw could avoid prison time altogether despite pleading guilty to fifteen felony charges.



Remy M. Delgado, Preston W. O’Leary, and Travontis D. Miller are all adults now, but they were 17-years old when they broke into the Showtime Guns & Ammo store on August 2nd, 2019 and stole approximately 50 firearms. Most of those haven’t been recovered, though police have traced one of those guns to the murder of an 87-year old woman last December. Despite the laundry list of felony offenses and the violent crime associated with their theft, however, Judge Andre R. Borrello told the teens back in June that he would sentence all three of them under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, which allows a judge to divert defendants to probation. If they successfully complete their probationary term, their record is wiped clean.

On Thursday, the three men appeared before Borello for sentencing, but the public isn’t allowed to know what sentences were actually handed down.

---

Judge Borello, who once chaired the Saginaw County Democratic Committee before he was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm,



Teens Get Slap On Wrist For Gun Store Burglary, Theft

 

[M14 Shooter]

As to the first question, what is the point of having something unless it's in a proper state of repair?

So... you cannot demonstrate any factual basis for your meaningless opinion statement. No surprise

As to the second question, we the people decide,

No. Congress and the states decide, and express that decision through the law. So says the constitution
As such, thy have deemed the "well regulated militia" to be the militia as it stands, at present.

As to the third, I cannot imagine the necessity of much change in the right to keep.

That's not what I asked you.
I asked you what effect all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
Well?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

So... you cannot demonstrate any factual basis for your meaningless opinion statement. No surprise

No. Congress and the states decide, and express that decision through the law. So says the constitution
As such, thy have deemed the "well regulated militia" to be the militia as it stands, at present.

That's not what I asked you.
I asked you what effect all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
Well?

I made a considerable effort to evenly address several questions that you raised. Are you paying attention?

You already know what the prattle (your word) means. The right to bear arms shall not be abridged due to the (then) need of a well-regulated militia. It's written in plain English. Is it the term well-regulated militia that has you confused? Check post #298 for an example of what well-regulated militia meant to the founders.

As for your indignant "Well", what part of the following did you not understand. "I cannot imagine the necessity of much change in the right to keep. I do think there needs to adjustments to the right to bear." That is my opinion, now stated for at least a second time.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You are an idiot..........San Francisco just recalled, by a majority of voters, their left wing, Soros prosecutor and other states are now trying to do the same.....

This is just a sample.......

New York...



The Mayor of New York City held a press conference yesterday that was full of fire and brimstone. The cover of the New York Post really says it all. “Mayor’s plea: We took 2,600 guns… But the shooters are back on the streets.”

---

The Mayor is clearly frustrated and it’s reached the point where he feels compelled to point out the obvious. He said, “after the shooting, after the arrest, after being let go — You know what they do? They go do another shooting.” The NYPD is already aware of this because they keep arresting the same people over and over again.

He pointed out that criminals in New York City “no longer believe you can’t do a shooting.” He continued, saying that criminals don’t take criminal justice seriously anymore.

While the Mayor didn’t mention him by name, he was clearly making a reference to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The DA came into office promising to put fewer people behind bars and proceeded to make good on that threat.



NYC Mayor: Our prosecutors are "a laughingstock" of the country



California..



Two days after the Uvalde shooting in Texas, the California State Senate passed a bill that would allow schools not to report threats or attacks against employees to law enforcement.

----

According to the Bill, it would repeal the provision of existing law where it requires that “whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities.”

SB 1273 would then make such reports to law enforcement voluntary.






California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Schools Not to Report Threats to Police

=========



Philly....



This year, though, we’ve jumped the shark. We’re on pace for over 600 murders—the most ever. An Inquirer story last week laid out some even more disturbing findings. Since Krasner took office, the number of gun crime arrests has nearly tripled, but the conviction rate for gun crimes has plunged from 63 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in 2019. In January, I reported that, under Krasner, homicides have jumped a whopping 58 percent; just 21 percent of shootings since 2015 led to criminal charges, and less than one-tenth of those resulted in convictions.

-----



The DA’s own data dashboard shows that, every year of his tenure, Krasner’s office has dismissed or withdrawn more violent cases and gun cases than the year before. In fact, the average annual number of such cases that were dismissed or withdrawn has increased by 85 percent during Krasner’s tenure, compared with the four years before he took office. All of this despite the fact that the police are making more gun arrests than at any time since 2015.



Larry Krasner is losing the battle against homicide. Will voters even care?



New york, 4/25/22



We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements.

There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)



Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind

California...



California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
------------
Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds



New York...



But now he may have a serious problem on his hands in the form of Alvin Bragg, the newly installed District Attorney for Manhattan. Almost immediately upon taking office, Bragg sent out a lengthy memo to all of the prosecutors under his office, issuing instructions that run almost 100% in defiance of the new mayor’s agenda. Prosecutors will be forbidden to seek jail terms for convicts in nearly all cases. In fact, to wind up behind bars at all, you’re probably going to have to literally kill someone or commit one of a handful of other extremely violent crimes. Oh, and almost nobody will be required to post bail. (NY Post)

New Manhattan DA promises to keep "emptying the jails"



Chicago's kim foxx

Chicago mayor, State Attorney Kim Foxx clash over deadly shootout





washington



So why are Washington Democrats offering up a bill in the state legislature to lower the penalties for drive-by shootings? Well, there’s woke and then there’s just plain stupid. Washington state Democrats are vying to become the best stupid they can be, bless ’em.

Currently, Washington law holds that a drive-by shooter should get an aggravated enhancement if he is arrested and prosecuted—and that’s a big if. Such an enhancement could land a drive-by murderer a life prison sentence.

But under a bill proposed for the upcoming Washington state legislature by white, woke ex-con state Rep. Tarra Simmons and her co-sponsor David Hackney, the reduction in penalties is a move toward “racial equity.” That’s right, drive-by shooting prosecutorial outcomes are racist. Never mind all the black and brown people who are the disproportionate victims of drive-by shootings.

Washington State Democrats Want Decreased Penalties for Drive-By Shooters Because... Aw, You Guessed

Minnesota...



colleague Bill Walsh explains:


You can follow the link to see the grid.


This proposed change would lower presumptive sentences for convicted felons in all categories, with sex criminals getting a special break:



On Crime, Liberals Still Don't Get It





School shooter released in illinois..

She Single-Handedly Stopped a School Shooting, But It Hasn't Been 'Happily Ever After' For Angela McQueen - The Truth About Guns

democrat judge



In Michigan, simply carrying a firearm without a concealed carry license can result in a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, but three teens who broke into a gun store in Saginaw could avoid prison time altogether despite pleading guilty to fifteen felony charges.



Remy M. Delgado, Preston W. O’Leary, and Travontis D. Miller are all adults now, but they were 17-years old when they broke into the Showtime Guns & Ammo store on August 2nd, 2019 and stole approximately 50 firearms. Most of those haven’t been recovered, though police have traced one of those guns to the murder of an 87-year old woman last December. Despite the laundry list of felony offenses and the violent crime associated with their theft, however, Judge Andre R. Borrello told the teens back in June that he would sentence all three of them under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, which allows a judge to divert defendants to probation. If they successfully complete their probationary term, their record is wiped clean.

On Thursday, the three men appeared before Borello for sentencing, but the public isn’t allowed to know what sentences were actually handed down.

---

Judge Borello, who once chaired the Saginaw County Democratic Committee before he was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm,



Teens Get Slap On Wrist For Gun Store Burglary, Theft

Please note that this is a discussion forum - not a paste forum. A modicum of evidentiary material is certainly not unreasonable, but you appear to be throwing a mountain of shit against the wall without having processed how it supports the sophomoric generalizations in your earlier post.

___________________________________
A small example from your paste:

School shooter released in illinois..

She Single-Handedly Stopped a School Shooting, But It Hasn't Been 'Happily Ever After' For Angela McQueen - The Truth About Guns

democrat judge
________________

Care to address what this single sample means? What is your point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I made a considerable effort to evenly address several questions that you raised. Are you paying attention?

You already know what the prattle (your word) means. The right to bear arms shall not be abridged due to the (then) need of a well-regulated militia. It's written in plain English. Is it the term well-regulated militia that has you confused? Check post #298 for an example of what well-regulated militia meant to the founders.

As for your indignant "Well", what part of the following did you not understand. "I cannot imagine the necessity of much change in the right to keep. I do think there needs to adjustments to the right to bear." That is my opinion, now stated for at least a second time.

M'kay...
Thus, you agree: all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

So... you cannot demonstrate any factual basis for your meaningless opinion statement. No surprise

No. Congress and the states decide, and express that decision through the law. So says the constitution
As such, thy have deemed the "well regulated militia" to be the militia as it stands, at present.

That's not what I asked you.
I asked you what effect all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
Well?

In review, I do not believe my first response to the above post properly addressed my compliant of what I read as gross generalizing in your post #481 where you wrote: "No......the most violent, and dangerous criminals are being released over and over again by the democrat party."

I challenged the above as generalizing and you responded by assembling a few dozen examples, ('a sample" as you put it) of incidents supporting your generalization. That doesn't cut it in a country of more than 350 million. I could selectively present a few dozen incidents to support just about any position.

Try this, do a google inquiring "do-gooder accidentally shoots innocent bystander". I did so and got back seven pages of accounts wherein a bystander was shot as a result of gun negligence (mostly by LEOs).

Shall we generalize that all friendly fire is the fault of LEOs on the merit of the few dozen google results? Certainly not, and neither do I accept the generalization that all the violence in this county is the fault of the Democratic Party. That's just your consciousness of guilt at work.

Your failed intellect is the result of substituting a gun for a small dick. Sorry (not really) - but you did open your last piece of bullshit to me with "you're an idiot". Reap what you sow.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

M'kay...
Thus, you agree: all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.

I agree that responsible, well-meaning, citizens have a right to arm themselves in self-defense. However, I do not accept that said right is carte-blank, that said right comes without a responsibility to co-operate with the general welfare - despite that such co-operation may present some degree of imposition. There are no perfect solutions.

While I am bound to accept the Heller Case as current law, I am not bound to accept it on an intellectual level. I do not believe that the 2ndA was written to convey an individual right. Rather, it was written, just as its opening clause announces: to accommodate a well-regulated militia.

So, I'm (kind of) on your side. I just think you are using the wrong argument when you indulge the 2ndA. Your right to self-defense (including arms) is a natural right just as many gun defenses appropriately argue.

But again, there will be no perfect solutions in weighing individual rights against the general welfare.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In review, I do not believe my first response to the above post properly addressed my compliant of what I read as gross generalizing in your post #481 where you wrote: "No......the most violent, and dangerous criminals are being released over and over again by the democrat party."

I didn't write that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree that responsible, well-meaning, citizens have a right to arm themselves in self-defense.

And thus, all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
Thank you

While I am bound to accept the Heller Case as current law, I am not bound to accept it on an intellectual level.

No one cares, so...

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

And thus, all this prattle about a "well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
Thank you

No one cares, so...

Your first statement is correct: the 2ndA does not state a guarantee to bear arms except through the archaic mechanism of a militia that does not exist. Of course, there is Scalia's bastardization of grammar that interprets an individual right. That will pass though I do not mean that it will put an end to gun rights.

Regarding the incomplete sentence: Not only do lots of people care but they appear to be a majority.

 

[flan327]

Illiterate, as usual.

Come again?

IQ TEST?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I didn't write that.

I know you did not, and don't believe I said that you did. If I did, my apology.

 

[flan327]

Your first statement is correct: the 2ndA does not state a guarantee to bear arms except through the archaic mechanism of a militia that does not exist. Of course, there is Scalia's bastardization of grammar that interprets an individual right. That will pass though I do not mean that it will put an end to gun rights.

Regarding the incomplete sentence: Not only do lots of people care but they appear to be a majority.

I’ll never own a gun
BUT
I support your right to legally purchase one
Or 100