Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[M14 Shooter]

The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here.

Of course - there's no way to soundly argue that is it necessary for the state to know who owns each of the356,000,000 gun in the US.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

No

Care to give your reason?

Are you writing a book for someone?

 

[12icer]

Let's put the 2nd amendment as you want it worded:

Your own Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

But it reads:

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

There is nothing regulated if you only have your approved Militias. The Black Panthers are now openly carrying and there is quite a bit of crying over that. Does it mean only WASPs of good standings have the right to be armed?

Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us, BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's put the 2nd amendment as you want it worded:

Your own Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

But it reads:

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

There is nothing regulated if you only have your approved Militias. The Black Panthers are now openly carrying and there is quite a bit of crying over that. Does it mean only WASPs of good standings have the right to be armed?

Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us, BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.

It's true that the only rights in this are the rights to keep arms and bear arms.

However what Bear arms means is often distorted to fit people's agendas.

The "introduction" as you call it gives the reason. The reason individuals have the right to keep arms (own arms) is so the militia has a ready supply of weapons. The reason individuals have the right to bear arms (to be in the militia) is so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us…

It's a matter of dishonesty, rather that illiteracy or ignorance. Anyone with a basic fluency in English can read what the Second Amendment clearly says,and understand what it means. There really isn't any valid excuse for claiming not to understand it, nor for claiming that it means anything different than what it says.

Those who do not agree with it, and who do not wish for it to be obeyed, know damn well that that is what their position is. So they try to lie about what the Second Amendment says, and what it means. If they were honest, then they'd admit that what they want cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment,and can only be legitimately achieved by amending the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment. But then, if they were honest, they'd also have to admit what their real reasons are for wanting honest Americans to be disarmed,and vulnerable to criminals, terrorists, and tyrants; and they would have to admit that they are on the side of criminals, terrorists,and tyrants, and against that of honest Americans.

Honesty is not a trait that can be reconciled with the positions and purposes of the anti-Second-Amendment scumbags.

BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.

You know the bar that hangs down at the back of large trucks and semi-trailers? That's known as a “Mansfield bar”—after Jayne Mansfield.

Ms. Mansfield was killed in 1967, in a terrible car accident, in which the car in which she was riding rear-ended a truck. The car went under the truck, shearing the top of the passenger compartment off,and causing immediately-fatal head injuries to Ms. Mansfield, and two other adults that were in the front seat of the car. Miraculously, some children in the back seat survived with only minor injuries.

The purpose of the Mansfield bar is to prevent that kind of accident, to stop a car from riding under the back of a truck as Ms. Mansfield's car did that fatal night.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us…

It's a matter of dishonesty, rather that illiteracy or ignorance. Anyone with a basic fluency in English can read what the Second Amendment clearly says,and understand what it means. There really isn't any valid excuse for claiming not to understand it, nor for claiming that it means anything different than what it says.

Those who do not agree with it, and who do not wish for it to be obeyed, know damn well that that is what their position is. So they try to lie about what the Second Amendment says, and what it means. If they were honest, then they'd admit that what they want cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment,and can only be legitimately achieved by amending the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment. But then, if they were honest, they'd also have to admit what their real reasons are for wanting honest Americans to be disarmed,and vulnerable to criminals, terrorists, and tyrants; and they would have to admit that they are on the side of criminals, terrorists,and tyrants, and against that of honest Americans.

Honesty is not a trait that can be reconciled with the positions and purposes of the anti-Second-Amendment scumbags.

BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.

You know the bar that hangs down at the back of large trucks and semi-trailers? That's known as a “Mansfield bar”—after Jayne Mansfield.

Ms. Mansfield was killed in 1967, in a terrible car accident, in which the car in which she was riding rear-ended a truck. The car went under the truck, shearing the top of the passenger compartment off,and causing immediately-fatal head injuries to Ms. Mansfield, and two other adults that were in the front seat of the car. Miraculously, some children in the back seat survived with only minor injuries.

The purpose of the Mansfield bar is to prevent that kind of accident, to stop a car from riding under the back of a truck as Ms. Mansfield's car did that fatal night.

Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means. Throughout US history, from the time before the 2A was an amendment, through the Presser Supreme Court case and the Dick act 1902 and to the Heller Court case, bear arms has been the right to be in the militia. It has never, ever been seen by the Supreme Court as the right to carry arms around. Not even the NRA thinks it is, seeing as they support carry and conceal permits which would be unconstitutional were the right to bear arms the right to carry arms.

 

[Iceweasel]

Let's put the 2nd amendment as you want it worded:

Your own Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

But it reads:

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

There is nothing regulated if you only have your approved Militias. The Black Panthers are now openly carrying and there is quite a bit of crying over that. Does it mean only WASPs of good standings have the right to be armed?

Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us, BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.

It's true that the only rights in this are the rights to keep arms and bear arms.

However what Bear arms means is often distorted to fit people's agendas.

The "introduction" as you call it gives the reason. The reason individuals have the right to keep arms (own arms) is so the militia has a ready supply of weapons. The reason individuals have the right to bear arms (to be in the militia) is so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.

How is that bearing arms if they are in storage in case a militia gets called into action? You're reasoning is mindless, inconsistent and struck down everywhere it's been tried. You know what they say about people trying the same thing expecting different results?

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually there are two parts of the 2nd divided by a comma. English comp would say the rule for the use of the comma is in this case to divide the INTRODUCTORY phrase, from the MAIN phrase of the 2nd which is THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so hard to understand for people who claim to be more intelligent than the rest of us…

It's a matter of dishonesty, rather that illiteracy or ignorance. Anyone with a basic fluency in English can read what the Second Amendment clearly says,and understand what it means. There really isn't any valid excuse for claiming not to understand it, nor for claiming that it means anything different than what it says.

Those who do not agree with it, and who do not wish for it to be obeyed, know damn well that that is what their position is. So they try to lie about what the Second Amendment says, and what it means. If they were honest, then they'd admit that what they want cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment,and can only be legitimately achieved by amending the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment. But then, if they were honest, they'd also have to admit what their real reasons are for wanting honest Americans to be disarmed,and vulnerable to criminals, terrorists, and tyrants; and they would have to admit that they are on the side of criminals, terrorists,and tyrants, and against that of honest Americans.

Honesty is not a trait that can be reconciled with the positions and purposes of the anti-Second-Amendment scumbags.

BTW did you know Jayne Mansfield's IQ was around 160 those around the swimming pool who didn't know her thought she was dumb too. Like most liberals they were intellectually superior in their own mirror.

You know the bar that hangs down at the back of large trucks and semi-trailers? That's known as a “Mansfield bar”—after Jayne Mansfield.

Ms. Mansfield was killed in 1967, in a terrible car accident, in which the car in which she was riding rear-ended a truck. The car went under the truck, shearing the top of the passenger compartment off,and causing immediately-fatal head injuries to Ms. Mansfield, and two other adults that were in the front seat of the car. Miraculously, some children in the back seat survived with only minor injuries.

The purpose of the Mansfield bar is to prevent that kind of accident, to stop a car from riding under the back of a truck as Ms. Mansfield's car did that fatal night.

Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means. Throughout US history, from the time before the 2A was an amendment, through the Presser Supreme Court case and the Dick act 1902 and to the Heller Court case, bear arms has been the right to be in the militia. It has never, ever been seen by the Supreme Court as the right to carry arms around. Not even the NRA thinks it is, seeing as they support carry and conceal permits which would be unconstitutional were the right to bear arms the right to carry arms.

When did they hear the case? How do you know what all justices thought prior? Are you omnipresent? The fact that some states restrict carry against our rights doesn't prove you are right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Disagree totally. The right to bear arms isn't clear what it means.

It is only “unclear” to those who are opposed to it, and do not want it to be upheld.

We hear, often enough, that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” as applied to an individual who unwittingly runs afoul of an obscure law. If that principle is to hold any validity, then ignorance of the highest law—the Constitution—is certainly no excuse for any public servant who has explicitly sworn an oath to uphold and defend it, and who is subsequently caught willfully participating in any violation thereof.

 

[jillian]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.

the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).

 

[Iceweasel]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.

the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).

When you are done chuckling up a storm try supporting your assertions. We can all use a good chuckle.

 

[ChrisL]

I am.

Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...

I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.

Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people." I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal. Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.

That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.

The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia. Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership. I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.

The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here. All Hardcore Republicans. Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons. One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box. With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them. Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons. You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.

Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them. But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.

All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws. If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.

Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.

Hunt, let me guess, you're one of the pedophiles.

What on earth are you talking about? I hope you realize it is against the rules to accuse other members of committing crimes???

Try to address the issues please. When you personally attack other posters, it shows that you have lost the argument, not to mention any credibility.

 

[jillian]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

you're actually incorrect. until scale's Heller decision, 200 plus years of justices KNEW the 2nd applied to a well-regulated militia and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

that said, even Heller acknowledged that reasonable regulation is appropriate and it is only a "total ban" which is not.

the right forgets that part and actually are intentionally hostile to it. (which is laughable since it's the law... but well... that's never stopped them).

When you are done chuckling up a storm try supporting your assertions. We can all use a good chuckle.

feel free to read heller. it's really boring for me to keep posting it and having the gun nuts ignore it.

read. learn.

and you pretend constitutionalists really should know what the status was before scalia got hold of it.

a read of the dissent of heller might educate you as well even though it is not the current law.

as for the justices laughing at your lunacy:

A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856#ixzz3xDrmChq3

not that you'll read it, acknowledge e it or stop trolling on the subject.

 

[Geaux4it]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No

 

[jillian]

Well Correll, I'm one of those "old people." I was firing rifles on my uncle's farm when I was a kid, I served 23 years in the military, was a range safety officer at my last command, own several weapons, keep my firearms in a locked safe, excluding the one I carry on my person (concealed weapons permit) and...have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone, unless my life, or that of someone else is in serious danger of being lost by a criminal. Just because we aren't young, doesn't mean we aren't safety conscious or not familiar with firearms.

That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.

The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia. Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership. I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.

The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here. All Hardcore Republicans. Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons. One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box. With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them. Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons. You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.

Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them. But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.

All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws. If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.

Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.

Hunt, let me guess, you're one of the pedophiles.

What on earth are you talking about? I hope you realize it is against the rules to accuse other members of committing crimes???

Try to address the issues please. When you personally attack other posters, it shows that you have lost the argument, not to mention any credibility.

let's see you defend someone who isn't a rightwingnut.

 

[Iceweasel]

feel free to read heller.

Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.

 

[jillian]

feel free to read heller.

Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.

i did.

read the link.

otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.

now grow up.

 

[Iceweasel]

feel free to read heller.

Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.

i did.

read the link.

otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.

now grow up.

You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.

 

[ChrisL]

That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that he doesn't want to see people like yourself left defenseless.

The individual posting this topic made it clear that to purchase a weapon, one would have to register it and be a member of an acceptable militia. Elderly wouldn't be accepted into any militia, so anyone that is elderly would be banned from gun ownership. I disagree with gun registration and would never agree to such a change in the Amendment.

The loudest proponents to having NO registration I know are from 3 people here. All Hardcore Republicans. Sounds good but they can't vote nor own weapons. One is a convicted armed robber and the other two were convicted as Pedophiles.
These 3 aren't the sharpest bulbs in the box. With gun checks like we have here, they can't legally (and aren't smart enough to buy illegally) any weapons and rely on others to get the weapons for them. Of course, all of us know their backgrounds and won't buy them weapons. You see, if they get a weapon from us and commit a crime, we will be found as guilty as they will be.

Yet, they can go out of state to a gun show and purchase the weapons by lying about it to vendors that don't know them. But, as I stated, they ain't the cream of the gene pool.

All Obama has done is aligned the Feds with what many of the states laws. If anyone that purchases a weapon must pass a background check them the stupid criminals won't be armed with a gun.

Convicted Felons don't have rights but they won't tell you that they can't buy it unless they are dumber than a box of rocks.

Hunt, let me guess, you're one of the pedophiles.

What on earth are you talking about? I hope you realize it is against the rules to accuse other members of committing crimes???

Try to address the issues please. When you personally attack other posters, it shows that you have lost the argument, not to mention any credibility.

let's see you defend someone who isn't a rightwingnut.

My points stand.

 

[ChrisL]

feel free to read heller.

Feel free to back up your claims. Heller wasn't long ago. Your smokescreen won't work.

i did.

read the link.

otherwise, stop trolling. because i gave you what you needed.

now grow up.

You posted no content, I don't do research for others. You're full of shit and throwing more out there won't work.

When does she ever post anything of "content?"