Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Cecilie1200]

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?"

Jillian's posts have "content" the same way my toilet does when the flush mechanism breaks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And it was Politico, at that. Like I said, same content as a broken toilet.

 

[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?"

Jillian's posts have "content" the same way my toilet does when the flush mechanism breaks.

so spaketh the disgusting cess pit

 

[jillian]

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.

And it was Politico, at that. Like I said, same content as a broken toilet.

that would be your posts, madam cesspit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?"

Jillian's posts have "content" the same way my toilet does when the flush mechanism breaks.

so spaketh the disgusting cess pit

"Spaketh"? You trying to be clever is like Hillary Clinton trying to be Miss America. Give it up and stick to things you have the equipment for.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And it was Politico, at that. Like I said, same content as a broken toilet.

that would be your posts, madam cesspit.

Ooh, the vaunted leftist "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument. I am cut to the quick by your devastating riposte.

 

[12icer]

Only liberals are stupid enough to blame the second amendment, gun owners, gun manufacturers and the NRA for gun crime. It proves their infantile wish to be the playground bully, and control everyone. THE FACT is the worst mass murder in the history of this country was committed by the government. It is true that governments murder thousands of times more citizens than all of the gun owners in the world CRIMINAL, and LEGAL. Your idea that taking guns from law abiding citizens will make it safer in the USA without a major change to all of your other rights, like privacy, free speech, freedom , freedom from unreasonable search, and PUBLIC TRIAL too. the second protects all the rest, if you can't understand that you need to go to a SOCIALIST country for a while.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

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.

ChrisL, as I recall he/she called people on the post as hard core Republicans (very likely in some cases), pedophiles and three shown on his post (my user name shown), as losers. It was insulting in and of itself. The last I checked, I do not believe a career in the military and a second career serving terminally-ill veterans and their families, as being a loser life.
It was serving my country. I consider him/her to be trash deserving of no respect.
Considering his/her attitude regarding military members/veterans as losers, he/she was bitter toward the military for either being rejected by it or, being discharged with an Administrative, Undesirable, or Dishonorable Discharge and thus hates us for it. So, if he can insult, I can insult.

 

[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.

ChrisL, as I recall he/she called people on the post as hard core Republicans (very likely in some cases), pedophiles and three shown on his post (my user name shown), as losers. It was insulting in and of itself. The last I checked, I do not believe a career in the military and a second career serving terminally-ill veterans and their families, as being a loser life.
It was serving my country. I consider him/her to be trash deserving of no respect.
Considering his/her attitude regarding military members/veterans as losers, he/she was bitter toward the military for either being rejected by it or, being discharged with an Administrative, Undesirable, or Dishonorable Discharge and thus hates us for it. So, if he can insult, I can insult.

You can call people "hard core republicans" and "losers." What you cannot do is accuse people of committing crimes. It doesn't accomplish anything anyways. It doesn't make your point, and it doesn't make you sound as if you know what you're talking about. It makes your credibility very weak to say the least when you go around accusing people of things that are not true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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).

and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
Never mind. LOL!

 

[12icer]

Yep introductory, and main. What is a free state? Is it the personal STATE of being FREE, or is it a State as defined as a Sovereign Country, or is it a Separate and free Sovereign Parrish or division of a conglomerate of STATES that are part of a country or alliance that is Free of oppression by the controlling entity. Or is it as in a Communist State the all powerful central STATE all controlling entity of Government. Define all please, and cross with English Comps defining rules for separation of clauses of Unequal standing.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

If I am reading it correctly, your post assumes that the right that we (the people) have to keep and bear arms is limited to the right to form militias and the right to participate in militias.

The second Amendment is only one aspect of the people's overall right to keep and bear arms. We (the people) had guns and used them frequently for well over a hundred years before the 2nd Amendment was even written.

The right to keep and bear arms for self protection, hunting, etc. was a GIVEN at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.

Think about this question: "Who gave the founders the right to take up arms against the King (George) and his tyranny?"

The "people" gave themselves that right in the Declaration of Independence. Didn't they?

What do you think the founders (and the people) would have said to the King at that time if the King insisted that the people "register" all their weapons with him and his government?

Our history surrounding the revolutionary war pretty much gives us the answer to that.

 

[hunarcy]

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).

and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
Never mind. LOL!

Of course, the right is not the right of the militia. It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.

 

[oldsoul]

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).

and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
Never mind. LOL!

Of course, the right is not the right of the militia. It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.

I wonder what part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear. What is INFRINGEMENT? definition of INFRINGEMENT (Black's Law Dictionary):

What is INFRINGEMENT?
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 140, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 092; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 721, 20 C. C. A. 107.
(Bold added.)

 

[emilynghiem]

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).

and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
Never mind. LOL!

Of course, the right is not the right of the militia. It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.

The LIMIT is not coming from some "imagined militia"
but there is a NATURAL check on rights, where you don't have the right to ABUSE
defense to threaten violence and commit crimes. With rights come responsibilities.
This is unwritten also, just a natural law.
so the same laws of human nature and democratic governance in collective society
that respect people's right to bear arms to DEFEND the laws
also check against abuses, because the laws include the right of people
to be SECURE and to have DUE PROCESS before depriving anyone of liberties.

What makes robbery, rape, theft, etc. crimes is that they violate the consent of others
and rob people of their equal rights and freedoms.

So there is a natural limit on freedom; by natural laws
people cannot violate the same laws they are defending or invoking
or else they get rejected as hypocrites.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

No. Didn't even read it. I will not comprimise my fundamental right as a US citizen to keep and bear arms.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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).

and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
Never mind. LOL!

Of course, the right is not the right of the militia. It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.

obviously it is the right of the people

folks had personal firearms LONG before the Constitution was written

or the militia mentioned in the Constitution existed

 

[hunarcy]

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).

and laughed out loud at even the idea that the 2nd provided a personal right of gun ownership.

Exactly! That's why it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wait, what?
Never mind. LOL!

Of course, the right is not the right of the militia. It's the right of the PEOPLE, but those who would control us try to create some imaginary limit that really doesn't exist.

The LIMIT is not coming from some "imagined militia"
but there is a NATURAL check on rights, where you don't have the right to ABUSE
defense to threaten violence and commit crimes. With rights come responsibilities.
This is unwritten also, just a natural law.
so the same laws of human nature and democratic governance in collective society
that respect people's right to bear arms to DEFEND the laws
also check against abuses, because the laws include the right of people
to be SECURE and to have DUE PROCESS before depriving anyone of liberties.

What makes robbery, rape, theft, etc. crimes is that they violate the consent of others
and rob people of their equal rights and freedoms.

So there is a natural limit on freedom; by natural laws
people cannot violate the same laws they are defending or invoking
or else they get rejected as hypocrites.

You are off on a tangent. At no point did I advocate abusing defense to threaten violence and commit crimes. But, it's the committing of the crime that is to be controlled, not the tools they used to commit the crime.

 

[oldsoul]

I wonder what part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear. What is INFRINGEMENT? definition of INFRINGEMENT (Black's Law Dictionary):

What is INFRINGEMENT?
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson, 112 Fed. 140, 50 C. C. A. 159, 55 L. R. A. 092; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 721, 20 C. C. A. 107.
(Bold added)
I am still wondering... Can anyone explain this to me. I really do not understand what is unclear about "...shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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?

registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.

siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids