CDZ What is a "high capacity" gun magazine...how many bullets?

[eflatminor]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

I'm a militia of one.

Problem solved.

Next.

 

[2aguy]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Yeah....you guys keep trying that argument....Scalia shows you how wrong you are in Heller, he breaks down the 2nd showing you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

And being the preferred magazine in 1,500,000 self defense shootings.....vs the hand full of mass shootings...all of which could have been done with revolvers and shotguns show you have no case.....or a rental truck.

A rental truck has murdered more people than all of the rifles and pistols with standard magazines.......so you have no case.

1.5 million self defense shootings used large capacity magazines?

You fantasizing again?

No.....1,500,000 self defense shootings using the magazines that came with the guns.......you guys lie about what a high capacity magazine is....your bait and switch.......

 

[2aguy]

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

Show me the numbers of self defense requiring more than 15 rounds

Every single one, since the victim has no idea how many rounds it will take to stop their attackers.....

You tell me which house fires require more than 100 gallons of water....

 

[2aguy]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

 

[danielpalos]

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

Irrelevant and a diversion.

The People are the militia.

 

[2aguy]

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

Irrelevant and a diversion.

The People are the militia.

The people have the Right to keep and bear arms...as the 2nd states......

 

[danielpalos]

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

Irrelevant and a diversion.

The People are the militia.

The people have the Right to keep and bear arms...as the 2nd states......

Sure, but only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[rightwinger]

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

And being the preferred magazine in 1,500,000 self defense shootings.....vs the hand full of mass shootings...all of which could have been done with revolvers and shotguns show you have no case.....or a rental truck.

A rental truck has murdered more people than all of the rifles and pistols with standard magazines.......so you have no case.

1.5 million self defense shootings used large capacity magazines?

You fantasizing again?

No.....1,500,000 self defense shootings using the magazines that came with the guns.......you guys lie about what a high capacity magazine is....your bait and switch.......

How many of those (fake) 1.5 million self defense shootings required more than 15 shots?

More proof that there is no compelling interest for private citizens to have magazines larger than 15 rounds

 

[rightwinger]

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

Show me the numbers of self defense requiring more than 15 rounds

Every single one, since the victim has no idea how many rounds it will take to stop their attackers.....

You tell me which house fires require more than 100 gallons of water....

There is ample data on how much water firemen use to fight fires. Fire departments don't buy truck to carry a million gallons because they know they would never need that much

Same way we know private citizens do not need more than 15 rounds in a magazine

 

[Toronado3800]

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

 

[rightwinger]

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

If our founding fathers had seen the annual massacres our nation endures due to the ready availability of firearms, they never would have passed the Second Amendment

 

[Skull Pilot]

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

And being the preferred magazine in 1,500,000 self defense shootings.....vs the hand full of mass shootings...all of which could have been done with revolvers and shotguns show you have no case.....or a rental truck.

A rental truck has murdered more people than all of the rifles and pistols with standard magazines.......so you have no case.

1.5 million self defense shootings used large capacity magazines?

You fantasizing again?

No.....1,500,000 self defense shootings using the magazines that came with the guns.......you guys lie about what a high capacity magazine is....your bait and switch.......

To be accurate a defensive gun use can include those times where the gun was never fired

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

If our founding fathers had seen the annual massacres our nation endures due to the ready availability of firearms, they never would have passed the Second Amendment

 

[2aguy]

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

Show me the numbers of self defense requiring more than 15 rounds

Every single one, since the victim has no idea how many rounds it will take to stop their attackers.....

You tell me which house fires require more than 100 gallons of water....

There is ample data on how much water firemen use to fight fires. Fire departments don't buy truck to carry a million gallons because they know they would never need that much

Same way we know private citizens do not need more than 15 rounds in a magazine

Nope......it took 40 rounds to put down the democrat, Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to murder the Republican baseball team....let me see....how many more bullets than 15 is 40?

And of course, you bait and switch...you guys aren't calling for allowing standard magazines...you want 10 round magazines...which would eliminate millions of privately owned, lawfully owned guns that take 15-19 bullets as standard capacity........

 

[2aguy]

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

And being the preferred magazine in 1,500,000 self defense shootings.....vs the hand full of mass shootings...all of which could have been done with revolvers and shotguns show you have no case.....or a rental truck.

A rental truck has murdered more people than all of the rifles and pistols with standard magazines.......so you have no case.

1.5 million self defense shootings used large capacity magazines?

You fantasizing again?

No.....1,500,000 self defense shootings using the magazines that came with the guns.......you guys lie about what a high capacity magazine is....your bait and switch.......

To be accurate a defensive gun use can include those times where the gun was never fired

Yep....so a guy like Rightwinger can say you can have the gun, you just don't need any bullets since many times a gun is never fired......

Please....don't give them any ideas....

 

[2aguy]

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

If our founding fathers had seen the annual massacres our nation endures due to the ready availability of firearms, they never would have passed the Second Amendment

Hey...isn't that the Physicist who was accused or rape...or is that another left wing democrat?

 

[2aguy]

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

Yeah....the problem with your analysis is the "Bear" part.......you can't carry a helicopter...

And you have no clue what you are talking about.....Scalia goes through the issue in Heller...you should actually read that before you comment on it....

 

[2aguy]

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

If our founding fathers had seen the annual massacres our nation endures due to the ready availability of firearms, they never would have passed the Second Amendment

If our Founding fathers knew that atheist governments around the world would murder 100 million innocent men, women and children, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't have been a free choice...they would have mandated that all Americans have several Rifles of the most advanced military design easily accessible at all times.....

If they knew that a rental truck would kill more people each year, except one, than all the mass public shootings in a year combined...they would have eliminated rental trucks....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...
Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

 

[2aguy]

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

If our founding fathers had seen the annual massacres our nation endures due to the ready availability of firearms, they never would have passed the Second Amendment

And if the Founders knew that Americans today would use their guns 1,500,000 times a year stop violent criminals and to save lives....many times during mass shootings, they would realize that they were completely right in protecting the Right to Bear Arms against people like you..........