Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[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.

When does she ever post anything of "content?"

She doesn't, probably somewhere else making more bullshit claims and calling all dissenters trolls.

 

[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.

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?"

i did.

just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.

now quiet, loon.

 

[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.

When does she ever post anything of "content?"

i did.

just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.

now quiet, loon.

Liar. You posted a hyperlink. That's just a short cut to another website. Posting short cuts to other websites doesn't support anything except your ability to post short cuts to other websites. If there were anything there to back up your stupid claims you could have posted it.

 

[jillian]

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?"

i did.

just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.

now quiet, loon.

Liar. You posted a hyperlink. That's just a short cut to another website. Posting short cuts to other websites doesn't support anything except your ability to post short cuts to other websites. If there were anything there to back up your stupid claims you could have posted it.

no, loon. i gave you a link.

don't call me a liar just because you're compulsive about it and don't know how to tell the truth.

read the link i provided.

read the case.

otherwise, go away because you're nothing but a troll

btw, you and others like you are the reason we call you rightwingnuts and trolls. man up.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Bullshit. People have always been free to own guns since the founding of this country. In fact, the people were expected to be armed. If any of these claims were true, then back when the second amendment was written, people would not have been able to have firearms. That there proves you wrong. Silly Jilly.

 

[ChrisL]

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).

Have you ever read the federalist papers Jilly?

 

[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.

Is this the best you can do? I thought you were a "lawyer?"

 

[iolo]

The total gutlessness of the gunmen means they never come out from under their beds long enough to discuss a compromise, poor little bed-wetting Mothers' boys.

 

[ChrisL]

The total gutlessness of the gunmen means they never come out from under their beds long enough to discuss a compromise, poor little bed-wetting Mothers' boys.

We don't compromise on our RIGHTS. Duh. That would be incredibly stupid.

 

[ChrisL]

The total gutlessness of the gunmen means they never come out from under their beds long enough to discuss a compromise, poor little bed-wetting Mothers' boys.

Since MOST legal gun owners never shoot anyone, there is no need for them to compromise on anything at all. Just because some psychos are going to pick up a weapon and kill people, that is NOT a reason for us to give up anything!

 

[iolo]

Just go on murdering more people than any rich country then, and enjoy it! Bloody weirdoes!

 

[Iceweasel]

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?"

i did.

just now to people like you. since, clearly you're incapable of either reading or responding to what was posted.

now quiet, loon.

Liar. You posted a hyperlink. That's just a short cut to another website. Posting short cuts to other websites doesn't support anything except your ability to post short cuts to other websites. If there were anything there to back up your stupid claims you could have posted it.

no, loon. i gave you a link.

don't call me a liar just because you're compulsive about it and don't know how to tell the truth.

read the link i provided.

read the case.

otherwise, go away because you're nothing but a troll

btw, you and others like you are the reason we call you rightwingnuts and trolls. man up.

You posted a link, asshole. Then you refuse to post any content while demanding I do your research and find the relevant portion that supports your claim.

That doesn't prove anything except low character on your part. But we all knew that already!

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Fine, those who claim it is the right to carry arms claim it is clear, even when they show they don't understand what it means.

 

[Iceweasel]

Just go on murdering more people than any rich country then, and enjoy it! Bloody weirdoes!

When Europeans visit the US one of the things they like to do most is go to the gun range. Sorry for your loss.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Fine, those who claim it is the right to carry arms claim it is clear, even when they show they don't understand what it means.

No, that's what you think is what happens because you are stupid and nuts. 300 million guns in private hands all because of a mistaken belief? LOL.

 

[iolo]

Iceweavil - That is all you have to say to justify all your thousands of murders? You are one very, very sick lot of gunmen!

 

[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.

Fine, those who claim it is the right to carry arms claim it is clear, even when they show they don't understand what it means.

It is absolutely clear what it means. The core of it is, “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” It identifies a right, states that this right belongs to the people, and it forbids this right from being infringed. There is no honest or rational way to reconcile this with any position or policy that in any way interferes with the exercise of this right by individual free Americans.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Fine, those who claim it is the right to carry arms claim it is clear, even when they show they don't understand what it means.

It is absolutely clear what it means. The core of it is, “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” It identifies a right, states that this right belongs to the people, and it forbids this right from being infringed. There is no honest or rational way to reconcile this with any position or policy that in any way interferes with the exercise of this right by individual free Americans.

So what is the right and what shall not be infringed? I mean, prisoners in prisons, mental people etc, should they not have this right infringed? Do you think the people would benefit from having criminals and mentally ill people having guns?

The thing is, no right is absolute. Even if the right says "shall not be infringed". At no time were prisoners able to have guns int he USA, not the day after the 2A was passed, not 2 years after, not 20 years after and not now. So why do you think this would be the case?

And you say it's absolutely clear, but it doesn't appear to be, does it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is an outright lie; not a single SCotUS decision supports your statement.

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

Another lie - if you;d had actually road Heller, you'd know this is untrue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is this the best you can do? I thought you were a "lawyer?"

She shines their shoes and listens to them talk while doing so.
She figures that's good enough.