Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world

[M14 Shooter]

The irony, of course, is that conservatives are victims of their own success.

Why do Democrats lie about wanting to ban and confiscate guns?

 

[justinacolmena]

I am interpreting the Constitution as written

Then I can have any arms, weapons, guns, and knives I want so shut up already.

 

[justinacolmena]

American English --> British (international) English
A well regulated militia --> Well-kept armed forces
being necessary --> being of a necessity
to the security --> for the safety and defence
of a free state, --> of a general state of freedom rather than slavery
the right of the people, --> the universal human right
to keep --> to possess
and bear --> and to carry (or "wear," as clothes or garments)
Arms, --> guns, ammunition, knives, stones, swords, bows and arrows and other weapons,
shall not be infringed. --> shall not be violated, limited, or restricted in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Abatis]

Do you agree that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the ability of militias and the citizenry to possess all arms. They put no restrictions on some arms or guns only.

At the moment of the Constitution's ratification (June 21st, 1788) I would argue the citizen's "right" to possess and use the weapons of open warfare had been surrendered / conferred to Congress through the Warmaking clauses of Section 8 . . .

It goes without saying (but I guess I must) such a right to those arms certainly was not granted to the citizen by the 2nd Amendment which came into force some three years five months after the Constitution was ratified (December 15, 1791).

Under the Supreme Court's holdings on the right to arms as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment, your theory has many fatal errors and no association with the law.

 

[Abatis]

American English --> British (international) English
A well regulated militia --> Well-kept armed forces
being necessary --> being of a necessity
to the security --> for the safety and defence
of a free state, --> of a general state of freedom rather than slavery
the right of the people, --> the universal human right
to keep --> to possess
and bear --> and carry
Arms, --> guns, ammunition, knives, stones, swords, bows and arrows and other weapons,
shall not be infringed. --> shall not be violated, limited, or restricted in any way, shape, or form.

Even better is the Supreme Court telling us in boringly consistent terms, for going on 146 years, that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Parsing words that the right in no manner depends upon, is a useless endeavor that only emboldens those who try to exinguish the right.

 

[justinacolmena]

At the moment of the Constitution's ratification (June 21st, 1788) I would argue the citizen's "right" to possess and use the weapons of open warfare had been surrendered / conferred to Congress through the Warmaking clauses of Section 8 . . .

Which is why Congress felt it necessary to RESTORE that right to the people by proposing it as Article the Fourth in the original Bill of Rights, of which Article the First has never yet been ratified by 3/4 the state legislatures, but Article the Second became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment when it was ratified by the legislature of the State of Michigan in 1992.

 

[Abatis]

Which is why Congress felt it necessary to RESTORE that right to the people

There was no rights restoration; the people never conferred any power over the personal arms of the private citizen to the federal government.

 

[justinacolmena]

There was no rights restoration;

You're in naked denial of the Constitution, to say that an Amendment to restore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms was properly proposed by Consgress and ratified by the States, and yet no restoration of that right ever took place.

You are giving unchecked power to liberal activist judges to legislate from the bench, twist and distort the law and constitution however they like and wrench our arms out of their sockets on the rack, however it pleases them to deny and disparage our rights, in spite of the letter of the law of the constitution, which holds that we as people have the universal right to keep and bear firearms, ammunition, guns, knives, sticks and stones, bows and arrows, other weapons.

the people never conferred any power over the personal arms of the private citizen to the federal government.

No they did not. However, dishonest Congressmen have in fact usurped that power to enact and enforce aggressive gun control legislation to register and confiscate at will any guns in the hands of private citizens.

 

[justinacolmena]

Even better is the Supreme Court telling us in boringly consistent terms, for going on 146 years, that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

If the right to keep and bear Arms --- that is, to carry and possess firearms, ammunition, guns, knives, swords, sticks and stones, bows and arrows, and other weapons --- is pre-existing and unalienable, then why do the judicial and executive branches of government insist on depriving us of that right, and registering, seizing, and confiscating our weapons, under medieval notions of mental health and other machinations of service of process in court?

And I certain do believe that the right to bear arms is pre-existing and unalienable, not dependent on the Constitution for its existence, but when a government exists, the government needs to be explicitly checked and restrained in no uncertain terms from violating our pre-existing and unalienable rights.

 

[Abatis]

You're in naked denial of the Constitution, to say that an Amendment to restore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms was properly proposed by Consgress and ratified by the States, and yet no restoration of that right ever took place.

I see he word "restoration" and I take that to mean the people had relinquished the right or had somehow lost the right by the ratification of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment was the legal mechanism to regain, or even worse, to grant or 'give back' the people the right to arms.

If that is what you mean by "restoration", that is wrong.

 

[Abatis]

If the right to keep and bear Arms --- that is, to carry and possess firearms, ammunition, guns, knives, swords, sticks and stones, bows and arrows, and other weapons --- is pre-existing and unalienable, then why do the judicial and executive branches of government insist on depriving us of that right, and registering, seizing, and confiscating our weapons, under medieval notions of mental health and other machinations of service of process in court?

Because no right is absolute in an ordered society.

And I certain do believe that the right to bear arms is pre-existing and unalienable, not dependent on the Constitution for its existence, but when a government exists, the government needs to be explicitly checked and restrained in no uncertain terms from violating our pre-existing and unalienable rights.

I agree as a matter of foundational constitutional philosophy, but the real-life problem was the government was off the constitutional rails for 66 years with the lower federal courts standing on the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment did not protect an individual right of the citizen.

From 1942 the lower federal courts held the 2nd Amendment only protected either a citizen's right to bear arms only when one was serving as a member of the militia or the right was only a right of states to form and control their militias, free of federal government interference.

SCOTUS, for whatever reason refused to hear cases challenging those bullshit theories until Heller, so for 66 years those collective right interpretations held sway and we have not dug our way out from under them yet.

You can pontificate all you what on those high-minded what-it-should-be's, but there are still jurisdictions where gun conrol laws are in force, sustained by relying on collective right court holdings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do Democrats lie about wanting to ban and confiscate guns?

The right’s lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ were always nothing more than partisan fearmongering; that conservatives continue to propagate those lies with the Supreme Court’s overwhelming majority of justices hostile to firearm regulations make those lies just as ridiculous as they are dishonest.

 

[Abatis]

The right’s lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ were always nothing more than partisan fearmongering; that conservatives continue to propagate those lies with the Supreme Court’s overwhelming majority of justices hostile to firearm regulations make those lies just as ridiculous as they are dishonest.

But until your imagined, partisan fearmongering about SCOTUS' hostility to firearms regulations is realized, your criticism of gun rights supporters calling out leftist's calls for gun bans is dishonest and ridiculous.

Until SCOTUS hands down an emphatic decision that invalidates gun bans in force now and forecloses all possible avenues for any ban on any type of firearms in common use to be enacted in the future, gun right's supporters calling out leftist's calls for gun bans is NOT dishonest or ridiculous.

The easiest way for leftist gun banners to stop hearing gun rights supporters complaining about proposed gun bans, is for you to stop proposing banning guns!

Reminds me of the old joke about a guy that goes to the doctor and complains that whenever he sticks a fork in his eye it hurts . . . The doctor's remedy? He tells the guy to stop doing that.

Really, it's that easy.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right’s lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ were always nothing more than partisan fearmongering;

Based on the campaign promises by the Democrats.
Did the Democrats lie about their promise to ban/confiscate guns?

 

[PaulF]

Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.

We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA

I used to think it was possible to do this. I no longer do. Every time politicians talk about gun control, they focus entirely on restricting the rights of legal gun owners. I don't see that changing anytime soon, so I will continue to vote accordingly.

 

[Colin norris]

Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.

We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA

You cannot use intelligence and gun owners in the same sentence. Its an oxymoron.

It's countries that have gun control that live in the real world. America is a left over from the wild west days. Very little intelligence circulating if they want guns to justify the slaughter of kids every week. Some stupid idiots even blame democrats for it.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

240 years, nobody has banned guns.

Unless you count black Americans.

 

[PaulF]

You cannot use intelligence and gun owners in the same sentence. Its an oxymoron.

It's countries that have gun control that live in the real world. America is a left over from the wild west days. Very little intelligence circulating if they want guns to justify the slaughter of kids every week. Some stupid idiots even blame democrats for it.

I think the same can be said for people who think law-abiding gun owners are the problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You cannot use intelligence and gun owners in the same sentence. Its an oxymoron.

You're a complete idiot. You know nothing about the place, but love the headlines.

 

[Colin norris]

I think the same can be said for people who think law-abiding gun owners are the problem.

Its not about law abiding. It's about guns getting into the hands of the wrong people because the laws are so slack.
It won't be long before McDonald's will give you a pistol as an upgrade to your big Mac.
But none of you care about slaughtered kids. You regard that as collateral damage as a right to own a gun you never use.