Why we need the 2nd Amendment

[Blues Man]

You've literally come along, completely ignored the conversation that was going on and started a new conversation that is pointless. Waydago.

It doesn't fucking matter if the 2nd doesn't mention self defense so your insistence that it matters to the validity of either the right to bear arms or the right to self defense is BULLSHIT

 

[frigidweirdo]

It doesn't fucking matter if the 2nd doesn't mention self defense so your insistence that it matters to the validity of either the right to bear arms or the right to self defense is BULLSHIT

I think you have no clue what we're talking about. You can either go back and read what this conversation is about, or you can go away and stop this nonsense.

 

[Blues Man]

I think you have no clue what we're talking about. You can either go back and read what this conversation is about, or you can go away and stop this nonsense.

I'll say what I want when I want

If you don;t like it piss off

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'll say what I want when I want

If you don;t like it piss off

Fine, then I'll block you so I never see the crap you're writing.

Hmmmkay? (That means, bye)

 

[Blues Man]

Fine, then I'll block you so I never see the crap you're writing.

Hmmmkay? (That means, bye)

Bye good riddance

 

[Open Bolt]

And for that matter depending on the department not all swat teams are issued automatic weapons. Life isn't what you have seen in a movie.

I've seen a lot of credible reporting of it happening over the years.

I suppose there could be a lot of SWAT teams that don't have full-auto weapons, but there are definitely some who do.

And maybe there is some argument for full-auto that I am unaware of. But all I can see coming of full-auto is more bullets missing the intended target and hitting more bystanders. Plus the full autos used by SWAT teams tend to fire pistol caliber ammo, which also means more bullets resisted by the bad-guys' Kevlar.

If I were picking weapons for a SWAT team, instead of something that fired pistol bullets on full-auto, I would pick something that fired rifle bullets on semi-auto.

 

[Open Bolt]

When you say "inherited", are you saying the rights in England were THE SAME as the rights in the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights was free to expand on them, but all rights that people had in England were carried over into the Bill of Rights.

Because here's the problem with the rights in England. They weren't exactly for the whole of the people. Just Gentlemen or other groups.
For example: In the English Bill of Rights it says: ""Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law""
Not Catholics, not Muslims, not atheists, but ONLY Protestants. Does the US Bill of Rights give a big "fuck you" to anyone not a Protestant? This is only 102 years before the US Bill of Rights.
Just to clarify, you did say "ALL" in capital letters and bold type, right?

ALL people in England had the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

The problem here comes when you THINK you know what's what, but it just isn't so.

Except, it is so.

You don't understand rights in the UK in the 1600s.....

Sure I do.

So you've made a huge mistake in your argument.

No mistake.

Yes, you have a carry and conceal permit in Florida. If the US protected the right to carry, you wouldn't need a permit, a permit would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
But the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? If they're unconstitutional?

Shall issue permitting isn't unconstitutional.

The point is that if something is a protected right in the Constitution, it can't have a limit like a permit put on it.

Shall issue permitting is not a limit.

I think you have no clue what we're talking about. You can either go back and read what this conversation is about, or you can go away and stop this nonsense.

Blues Man knows exactly what he is talking about. The Second Amendment does not have to mention private self defense in order to protect the right to have guns for private self defense.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. And that includes the right to keep and bear arms for private self defense.

 

[Blues Man]

The Bill of Rights was free to expand on them, but all rights that people had in England were carried over into the Bill of Rights.



ALL people in England had the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.



Except, it is so.



Sure I do.



No mistake.



Shall issue permitting isn't unconstitutional.



Shall issue permitting is not a limit.



Blues Man knows exactly what he is talking about. The Second Amendment does not have to mention private self defense in order to protect the right to have guns for private self defense.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. And that includes the right to keep and bear arms for private self defense.

Indeed it protects the right to keep and bear arms for any or no reason at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah, maybe......
But DAMN they've come a LONG way in neutering the 2A since then. Maybe we shoulda done something THEN ???

The 1994 AWB was the last federal gun control act.
Since then, numerous states have moved to shall-issue, and then, no need to issue concealed carry systems.
Of course, NY and CA and HI and NJ all have passed more unnecessary and ineffective laws, but that's what happens when Demcorats know they don't havew to worry about losing power.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I've seen a lot of credible reporting of it happening over the years.

I suppose there could be a lot of SWAT teams that don't have full-auto weapons, but there are definitely some who do.

And maybe there is some argument for full-auto that I am unaware of. But all I can see coming of full-auto is more bullets missing the intended target and hitting more bystanders. Plus the full autos used by SWAT teams tend to fire pistol caliber ammo, which also means more bullets resisted by the bad-guys' Kevlar.

If I were picking weapons for a SWAT team, instead of something that fired pistol bullets on full-auto, I would pick something that fired rifle bullets on semi-auto.

I have no argument for or against having an automatic firearm but it is my position if you feel like you need One it should be your right to have one or as many as you want.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Bill of Rights was free to expand on them, but all rights that people had in England were carried over into the Bill of Rights.



ALL people in England had the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.



Except, it is so.



Sure I do.



No mistake.



Shall issue permitting isn't unconstitutional.



Shall issue permitting is not a limit.



Blues Man knows exactly what he is talking about. The Second Amendment does not have to mention private self defense in order to protect the right to have guns for private self defense.

The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. And that includes the right to keep and bear arms for private self defense.

Again, you're making claims that just aren't true.

For example the right to petition the king, er....

Keeping a standing army in times of peace is against the law, er....

Only protestants can have arms, er....

Jurors in trials need to be freeholders, er....

You keep just making stuff up and it's getting annoying.

 

[Open Bolt]

I have no argument for or against having an automatic firearm but it is my position if you feel like you need One it should be your right to have one or as many as you want.

I don't need one. But I'd love to have a German MG-34 and MP-34 just to shoot tin cans with in my back yard.

 

[Open Bolt]

Again, you're making claims that just aren't true.

That is incorrect. My claims are true.

For example the right to petition the king, er....
Keeping a standing army in times of peace is against the law, er....
Only protestants can have arms, er....
Jurors in trials need to be freeholders, er....

I do not recall saying any of those things.

What I say is:

People have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

People have the right to enough firepower to provide an effective defense.

You keep just making stuff up and it's getting annoying.

I am not making anything up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That is incorrect. My claims are true.



I do not recall saying any of those things.

What I say is:

People have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

People have the right to enough firepower to provide an effective defense.



I am not making anything up.

Nonsense. I've literally shown you that they're not true and you ignore it all.

I can't be bothered.

Bye.

 

[Open Bolt]

Nonsense. I've literally shown you that they're not true and you ignore it all.

You have done no such thing.

It is not even possible to show that the right to have guns for the defense of your home isn't true, because the right very clearly does exist.

Of course I ignore imaginary posts. Try making real posts, and I'll pay attention to those.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't need one. But I'd love to have a German MG-34 and MP-34 just to shoot tin cans with in my back yard.

Rights aren't based on needs. You should have the right without government intrusion have Access to any firearm you want.

 

[Open Bolt]

Rights aren't based on needs. You should have the right without government intrusion have Access to any firearm you want.

The Heller ruling is unlikely to extend to full-auto weapons though. It is focused on self defense and not the militia. So the courts are not soon going to give me unrestrained access to machine guns.

That's not to say I'm not happy with Heller as a good first step. It's much better than the courts not doing anything at all. And if they apply Strict Scrutiny to the Second Amendment this summer we will see a lot of gun control laws being struck down soon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Heller ruling is unlikely to extend to full-auto weapons though. It is focused on self defense and not the militia. So the courts are not soon going to give me unrestrained access to machine guns.

That's not to say I'm not happy with Heller as a good first step. It's much better than the courts not doing anything at all. And if they apply Strict Scrutiny to the Second Amendment this summer we will see a lot of gun control laws being struck down soon.

You are mistaken RIGHTS are to be protected not granted by the government. Congress or the courts have no authority over rights.

 

[Open Bolt]

You are mistaken RIGHTS are to be protected not granted by the government. Congress or the courts have no authority over rights.

The courts are the bodies that enforce our rights. Without the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, what use would our rights be?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The courts are the bodies that enforce our rights. Without the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, what use would our rights be?

But to dictate a right that you had before the bill of rights were written they do not have that authority