What would you do with the second amendment?

[yiostheoy]

100% 2nd amd interpretation isn't possible to achieve

bits/pieces yes, entirety no.....

~S~

Well as long as the SCOTUS is cool with violating the 2nd Amendment then these federal and state statutes against 2A will prevail and continue.

 

[yiostheoy]

Seems pretty straightforward. Let's follow that, to the letter. Thus, every U.S. citizen (man, woman, child), should have unfettered access to every and all arms, including fully automatic weapons of all calibers, R.P.G.'s, etc.. This also means that things such as being a released felon with a history of violent crimes does not disqualify you from owning whatever arm you desire. Same goes for U.S. citizens who are Muslim and have expressed sympathy and understanding for jihadists. Also, the mentally ill must have full access.

You just like to make shit up don't you.

What am I making up? If we are saying the 2nd is clear cut, then it is clear cut. The right to bear arm will NOT be infringed. Period. End of story. We cannot use the strict interpretation of the 2nd as rationale for not having to register guns, not being able to buy whatever guns we want, etc., but then ignore it when it comes to things like felons, the mentally ill, Muslim nutjobs, etc..

RPGs? Felons with violent crime history, what you are making up is the zero sum game. No one is proposing that those things happen and don't give me any of that childish nonsense that I have to have one or the other. it's a lie. Period.

That is my point. I am addressing the people, including the ones on this very thread, who are making their argument for NO gun regulations based on a 100% strict interpretation of the wording of the 2nd. If you have a problem, address it with them.

"... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Plain and simple.

Not popular but very succinct.

 

[there4eyeM]

Inflexibility about the interpretation of relative meaning in words is absurd, to put it mildly. So much of what was said in the past has had to be re-examined in the present that we know for certain it will continue in the future.
Live it or live with it.

 

[basquebromance]

bump stocks aren't allowed at NRA shooting ranges cos they're too "dangerous". Hypocrisy!

 

[sparky]

Seems pretty straightforward. Let's follow that, to the letter. Thus, every U.S. citizen (man, woman, child), should have unfettered access to every and all arms, including fully automatic weapons of all calibers, R.P.G.'s, etc.. This also means that things such as being a released felon with a history of violent crimes does not disqualify you from owning whatever arm you desire. Same goes for U.S. citizens who are Muslim and have expressed sympathy and understanding for jihadists. Also, the mentally ill must have full access.

You just like to make shit up don't you.

What am I making up? If we are saying the 2nd is clear cut, then it is clear cut. The right to bear arm will NOT be infringed. Period. End of story. We cannot use the strict interpretation of the 2nd as rationale for not having to register guns, not being able to buy whatever guns we want, etc., but then ignore it when it comes to things like felons, the mentally ill, Muslim nutjobs, etc..

RPGs? Felons with violent crime history, what you are making up is the zero sum game. No one is proposing that those things happen and don't give me any of that childish nonsense that I have to have one or the other. it's a lie. Period.

That is my point. I am addressing the people, including the ones on this very thread, who are making their argument for NO gun regulations based on a 100% strict interpretation of the wording of the 2nd. If you have a problem, address it with them.

"... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Plain and simple.

Not popular but very succinct.

Cherrypicked partial , incomplete ,thus unapplicable

~S~

 

[sparky]

Inflexibility about the interpretation of relative meaning in words is absurd, to put it mildly. So much of what was said in the past has had to be re-examined in the present that we know for certain it will continue in the future.
Live it or live with it.

Are all amendments to be considered in this context 4IM?

As a 'well regulated militia' is now off the table , we're left with no choice but to interpret the 2A towards our individual needs and wants

Kinda like being just a 'little pregnant'

~S~

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.

The 2nd Amendment has magical powers to prevent security issues. Praise Odin.

why have a right to keep and bear Arms, right wingers.

Because the Constitution, the ultimate law of the land states, I have the right to. End of conversation

The express purpose for that right, is in the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Seems pretty straightforward. Let's follow that, to the letter. Thus, every U.S. citizen (man, woman, child), should have unfettered access to every and all arms, including fully automatic weapons of all calibers, R.P.G.'s, etc.. This also means that things such as being a released felon with a history of violent crimes does not disqualify you from owning whatever arm you desire. Same goes for U.S. citizens who are Muslim and have expressed sympathy and understanding for jihadists. Also, the mentally ill must have full access.

You just like to make shit up don't you.

What am I making up? If we are saying the 2nd is clear cut, then it is clear cut. The right to bear arm will NOT be infringed. Period. End of story. We cannot use the strict interpretation of the 2nd as rationale for not having to register guns, not being able to buy whatever guns we want, etc., but then ignore it when it comes to things like felons, the mentally ill, Muslim nutjobs, etc..

RPGs? Felons with violent crime history, what you are making up is the zero sum game. No one is proposing that those things happen and don't give me any of that childish nonsense that I have to have one or the other. it's a lie. Period.

That is my point. I am addressing the people, including the ones on this very thread, who are making their argument for NO gun regulations based on a 100% strict interpretation of the wording of the 2nd. If you have a problem, address it with them.

"... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Plain and simple.

Not popular but very succinct.

Guess the right wing can't ban the lgbt community from uniformed, federal service.

 

[there4eyeM]

Inflexibility about the interpretation of relative meaning in words is absurd, to put it mildly. So much of what was said in the past has had to be re-examined in the present that we know for certain it will continue in the future.
Live it or live with it.

Are all amendments to be considered in this context 4IM?

As a 'well regulated militia' is now off the table , we're left with no choice but to interpret the 2A towards our individual needs and wants

Kinda like being just a 'little pregnant'

~S~

Naturally, as all words are human creations that are relative to how humans choose to use and define them, so, also, is the Constitution in its entirety.
Nothing is off any table until we agree it is.
The rigid, impossible position of the "Orthodox 2nd" folks indicates they think, for example, every arm should be available or it is infringement. That is already not the case. They even seem to imply that such things as cannot even be born/carried, such as tanks and other weapons, should be included. This is the extremism that will drive the debate to unfortunate excesses in regulation.
By the present wording, it could be interpreted that as long as at least some arms are available to the people, they still have their 'right' and can bear those. This will cause a stir among the "Orthodox", but that radical position can no longer be respected.
The simple fact is that social awareness dictates sensitivity to an issue of great importance, a sensitivity the the "O2" types shun.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Guess the right wing can't ban the lgbt community from uniformed, federal service.

I agree.

They can ban gender reassignment surgery while serving, but cannot, and SHOULD NOT ban anyone in the lgbt community solely for their status as lgbt.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The express purpose for that right, is in the first clause.

And, the express restriction and operative effect of the amendment is in the operative, or "second" clause.

Now, go read Heller to learn whether the first clause limits or qualifies the second clause. Don't "appeal to ignorance of the Heller ruling" Sanchito.

 

[Darkwind]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,

This is a lie.

No one is talking about ‘disarming’ anyone.

The point is this: the notion that private citizens armed only with semi-automatic weapons could ‘overthrow’ a government some have incorrectly and subjectively perceive to have become ‘tyrannical’ is idiocy, rendering the ‘argument’ that citizens have a right to possess firearms to ‘fight tyranny’ completely devoid of merit.

That’s why the Heller Court found that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right, unconnected with militia service, acknowledging the fact that ‘the militia’ have become an anachronism

The ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy is as ridiculous as is wrong.

And the military would indeed follow the lawful order of putting down a lawless insurrection instigated by armed citizens who have incorrectly and subjectively perceived the government to have become ‘tyrannical,’ a government put into place reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Nothing in this reply is factual, correct, or even born of a tenacious grasp of reality.

Well, the key part of my response to the OP was "hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the "we have to defend ourselves against...." nonsense. Because I think a great many of them buy the NRA talking points and regurgitate them without giving their veracity a second thought.

You saw this after Sandyhook when they laughably blamed video games and movies for school shootings when the same games and movies are sold world wide. Thankfully and predictably, they've moved away from that hysteria and are now trying to blame over the counter drugs for massacres. In a few months, they will blame daylights savings time or the Hawaii volcanoes; anything except too many guns in the hands of too many persons who are not responsible gun owners.

It is laughable to blame guns at all.

The silliness of 'having to defend ourselves against"? What utter nonsense. Did you hear about the animal (no really, that is his gang nickname) who brutally stabbed a teenager to death and taunted him while doing it? It was part of this animal's initiation into MS-13.

I am curious as to the type of cowardice that remarks that "you can't take on our government with arms" as if defending your right to survive and live free of a tyrannical government hinged on being able to fortell winning that engagement.

When the Founding generation took on the most powerful nation on the planet to win their freedom from them, they didn't fight knowing they would win. They fought because they were right. They would have rightly called anyone who would not fight for fear of losing a 'Coward'.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,

This is a lie.

No one is talking about ‘disarming’ anyone.

The point is this: the notion that private citizens armed only with semi-automatic weapons could ‘overthrow’ a government some have incorrectly and subjectively perceive to have become ‘tyrannical’ is idiocy, rendering the ‘argument’ that citizens have a right to possess firearms to ‘fight tyranny’ completely devoid of merit.

That’s why the Heller Court found that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right, unconnected with militia service, acknowledging the fact that ‘the militia’ have become an anachronism

The ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy is as ridiculous as is wrong.

And the military would indeed follow the lawful order of putting down a lawless insurrection instigated by armed citizens who have incorrectly and subjectively perceived the government to have become ‘tyrannical,’ a government put into place reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Nothing in this reply is factual, correct, or even born of a tenacious grasp of reality.

Well, the key part of my response to the OP was "hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the "we have to defend ourselves against...." nonsense. Because I think a great many of them buy the NRA talking points and regurgitate them without giving their veracity a second thought.

You saw this after Sandyhook when they laughably blamed video games and movies for school shootings when the same games and movies are sold world wide. Thankfully and predictably, they've moved away from that hysteria and are now trying to blame over the counter drugs for massacres. In a few months, they will blame daylights savings time or the Hawaii volcanoes; anything except too many guns in the hands of too many persons who are not responsible gun owners.

It is laughable to blame guns at all.

The silliness of 'having to defend ourselves against"? What utter nonsense. Did you hear about the animal (no really, that is his gang nickname) who brutally stabbed a teenager to death and taunted him while doing it? It was part of this animal's initiation into MS-13.

I am curious as to the type of cowardice that remarks that "you can't take on our government with arms" as if defending your right to survive and live free of a tyrannical government hinged on being able to fortell winning that engagement.

When the Founding generation took on the most powerful nation on the planet to win their freedom from them, they didn't fight knowing they would win. They fought because they were right. They would have rightly called anyone who would not fight for fear of losing a 'Coward'.

You honestly believe that the Colonials fought all by their little lonesome? You forget the support both military and supplies that France and Spain were giving them. Meanwhile, Germany was giving it to the British. It was the first Proxy war. Are you aware that the ones fighting and supporting the breakaway were actually a minority? The majority would have liked it to stay status quo or could care either way. It only affected the Rich White Land Owners and affected everyone else very little. Of course, there were brib.....er..... promises made that brought the poor into the battle. Most promises were kept. Some weren't. I won't go into that because that's another discussion. Are you also aware that the British tried to take the weapons from the ones that supported the "Cause" and that is what brought on the 2nd amendment? Or directly afterwards, the new "Government" tried to do the same to those that supported the Crown? These were not lilly white saints. They were trying to put together and keep together a new nation and some pretty dirty and underhanded things were done in the process building up to the Constitution.

Add to the fact that France wanted as many British Troops to be tide up as possible in the Americas. If they got their way, Britain would have been weakened to the point where France and Spain could have attacked Britain in other places and won those battles and taken those possessions. Germany was just getting started in the Possession business and didn't want France to grown any stronger. It wasn't just about "Rights" in the Americas, it was more about land grabs and land possession throughout the world. Britain lost it's North American Possession but retained it's very large amount of Possessions in the rest of the World. In a sense, France and Spain lost a lot more than Britain did.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You honestly believe that the Colonials fought all by their little lonesome? You forget the support both military and supplies that France and Spain were giving them. Meanwhile, Germany was giving it to the British. It was the first Proxy war. Are you aware that the ones fighting and supporting the breakaway were actually a minority? The majority would have liked it to stay status quo or could care either way. It only affected the Rich White Land Owners and affected everyone else very little. Of course, there were brib.....er..... promises made that brought the poor into the battle. Most promises were kept. Some weren't. I won't go into that because that's another discussion. Are you also aware that the British tried to take the weapons from the ones that supported the "Cause" and that is what brought on the 2nd amendment? Or directly afterwards, the new "Government" tried to do the same to those that supported the Crown? These were not lilly white saints. They were trying to put together and keep together a new nation and some pretty dirty and underhanded things were done in the process building up to the Constitution.

Add to the fact that France wanted as many British Troops to be tide up as possible in the Americas. If they got their way, Britain would have been weakened to the point where France and Spain could have attacked Britain in other places and won those battles and taken those possessions. Germany was just getting started in the Possession business and didn't want France to grown any stronger. It wasn't just about "Rights" in the Americas, it was more about land grabs and land possession throughout the world. Britain lost it's North American Possession but retained it's very large amount of Possessions in the rest of the World. In a sense, France and Spain lost a lot more than Britain did.

None of that "history lesson" rebutted anything Darkwind posted. Did you have a point?

 

[sparky]

You honestly believe that the Colonials fought all by their little lonesome? You forget the support both military and supplies that France and Spain were giving them. Meanwhile, Germany was giving it to the British. It was the first Proxy war. Are you aware that the ones fighting and supporting the breakaway were actually a minority? The majority would have liked it to stay status quo or could care either way. It only affected the Rich White Land Owners and affected everyone else very little. Of course, there were brib.....er..... promises made that brought the poor into the battle. Most promises were kept. Some weren't. I won't go into that because that's another discussion. Are you also aware that the British tried to take the weapons from the ones that supported the "Cause" and that is what brought on the 2nd amendment? Or directly afterwards, the new "Government" tried to do the same to those that supported the Crown? These were not lilly white saints. They were trying to put together and keep together a new nation and some pretty dirty and underhanded things were done in the process building up to the Constitution.

Add to the fact that France wanted as many British Troops to be tide up as possible in the Americas. If they got their way, Britain would have been weakened to the point where France and Spain could have attacked Britain in other places and won those battles and taken those possessions. Germany was just getting started in the Possession business and didn't want France to grown any stronger. It wasn't just about "Rights" in the Americas, it was more about land grabs and land possession throughout the world. Britain lost it's North American Possession but retained it's very large amount of Possessions in the rest of the World. In a sense, France and Spain lost a lot more than Britain did.

None of that "history lesson" rebutted anything Darkwind posted. Did you have a point?

So we were the 'most powerful nation on the planet' in the 1770's ?

Man....I never get the memo......

~S~

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So we were the 'most powerful nation on the planet' in the 1770's ?

Man....I never get the memo......

~S~

We took on the most powerful nation (Great Britain).

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So we were the 'most powerful nation on the planet' in the 1770's ?

Man....I never get the memo......

~S~

We took on the most powerful nation (Great Britain).

Had Britain actually wanted to put it's heart into it, it would have been like swatting a bug. But they had a lot more to lose than the America. The Idiot didn't understand what I was getting to. France and Spain were helping the "Upstarts" because they wanted Britain to send their full power of troops, including Navy to squelch the rebellion. In turn, they would have run roughshod in other part of the world including the many Spice ways that they British had wrested from the Dutch.

 

[danielpalos]

The express purpose for that right, is in the first clause.

And, the express restriction and operative effect of the amendment is in the operative, or "second" clause.

Now, go read Heller to learn whether the first clause limits or qualifies the second clause. Don't "appeal to ignorance of the Heller ruling" Sanchito.

You miss the point, right wingers. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied. Natural rights is not the Cause expressed, in the first clause.

 

[candycorn]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,

This is a lie.

No one is talking about ‘disarming’ anyone.

The point is this: the notion that private citizens armed only with semi-automatic weapons could ‘overthrow’ a government some have incorrectly and subjectively perceive to have become ‘tyrannical’ is idiocy, rendering the ‘argument’ that citizens have a right to possess firearms to ‘fight tyranny’ completely devoid of merit.

That’s why the Heller Court found that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right, unconnected with militia service, acknowledging the fact that ‘the militia’ have become an anachronism

The ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy is as ridiculous as is wrong.

And the military would indeed follow the lawful order of putting down a lawless insurrection instigated by armed citizens who have incorrectly and subjectively perceived the government to have become ‘tyrannical,’ a government put into place reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Nothing in this reply is factual, correct, or even born of a tenacious grasp of reality.

Well, the key part of my response to the OP was "hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the "we have to defend ourselves against...." nonsense. Because I think a great many of them buy the NRA talking points and regurgitate them without giving their veracity a second thought.

You saw this after Sandyhook when they laughably blamed video games and movies for school shootings when the same games and movies are sold world wide. Thankfully and predictably, they've moved away from that hysteria and are now trying to blame over the counter drugs for massacres. In a few months, they will blame daylights savings time or the Hawaii volcanoes; anything except too many guns in the hands of too many persons who are not responsible gun owners.

It is laughable to blame guns at all.

The silliness of 'having to defend ourselves against"? What utter nonsense. Did you hear about the animal (no really, that is his gang nickname) who brutally stabbed a teenager to death and taunted him while doing it? It was part of this animal's initiation into MS-13.

I am curious as to the type of cowardice that remarks that "you can't take on our government with arms" as if defending your right to survive and live free of a tyrannical government hinged on being able to fortell winning that engagement.

When the Founding generation took on the most powerful nation on the planet to win their freedom from them, they didn't fight knowing they would win. They fought because they were right. They would have rightly called anyone who would not fight for fear of losing a 'Coward'.

The comment above that I made spoke to the falseness of the “rallying cry” that you have to defend yourself from the government.

As for the “blame”, I don’t really want to get into it because we all know where it will end but….deep breath….there are dozens of advanced nations that have a very minute fraction of our gun deaths and they enjoy as much freedom as we do. They have the same books, magazines, movies, video games, tabloids, etc and they have a much more militaristic recent past than we do; industrial scale violence is not a hypothetical to these people; their fathers and mothers experienced it on their homeland.

The only difference is the 2nd Amendment.

 

[sparky]

The only difference is the 2nd Amendment.

Which makes a dif how?

I have guns, a whole locker of 'em

Can anyone here tell me how the make me any more ,less, worse, better that these 'advanced nations'....?

~S~