Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,120
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 5, 2019 11:28:34 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,104
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 5, 2019 11:28:57 GMT -5
I would also direct people to the Stevens dissent in Heller. Far more convincing than anything Scalia wrote.
An individual right was named in some of the state constitutions. That language to stipulate an individual right was debated during the writing of the Second Amendment. It was NOT included. As others note, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the people of this country would be able to raise a militia if they needed one, since they did not want to maintain a standing army. The "well-regulated militia" written about is what is now the National Guard. If you want to own and use a weapon, feel free to enlist. The only right guaranteed under the Second Amendment is a collective one. The individual "right" was never supported through any Supreme Court decision until Heller. That decision did not affirm an individual right. It created one. And even if we want to go so far as to grant an individual right, there is NOTHING in the Second Amendment that bars restrictions on things like number or types of weapons, background checks, etc. Even in that decision, the justices affirmed that many things that would rile extreme 2A supporters are presumptively lawful. The original laws under the Founders would make today's 2A supporters go ballistic. Requirements to have guns registered, to have them inspected, to attend mandatory musters for training, bans on ownership by certain people, etc. I don't think the Second Amendment needs to be repealed. It is an anachronism, but it is mostly harmless on its face. It just needs to be interpreted correctly. That alone would make it almost irrelevant today.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 11:35:59 GMT -5
I would also direct people to the Stevens dissent in Heller. Far more convincing than anything Scalia wrote. An individual right was named in some of the state constitutions. That language to stipulate an individual right was debated during the writing of the Second Amendment. It was NOT included. As others note, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the people of this country would be able to raise a militia if they needed one, since they did not want to maintain a standing army. The "well-regulated militia" written about is what is now the National Guard. If you want to own and use a weapon, feel free to enlist. The only right guaranteed under the Second Amendment is a collective one. The individual "right" was never supported through any Supreme Court decision until Heller. That decision did not affirm an individual right. It created one. And even if we want to go so far as to grant an individual right, there is NOTHING in the Second Amendment that bars restrictions on things like number or types of weapons, background checks, etc. Even in that decision, the justices affirmed that many things that would rile extreme 2A supporters are presumptively lawful. The original laws under the Founders would make today's 2A supporters go ballistic. Requirements to have guns registered, to have them inspected, to attend mandatory musters for training, bans on ownership by certain people, etc. I don't think the Second Amendment needs to be repealed. It is an anachronism, but it is mostly harmless on its face. It just needs to be interpreted correctly. That alone would make it almost irrelevant today. yeah. ironically, if the 2nd amendment were actually serving it's original purpose, most of the so called "gun grabbers" would have ZERO to complain about.
it is the overreach of the 2A community that is creating the problem, not the left.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,776
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 5, 2019 11:38:24 GMT -5
happy, any ban is an infringement. Robin your liberties are infringed on all the time.
You can't drive 100 MPH on the freeway, even if you have a car that can go that fast.
You can't walk around naked in public. You can't drink beer on a public street (except in Savannah, GA).
The second amendment refers to 'commonly used' weapons (which at the time, would have been muskets and flintlocks) so even then, I'm assuming that meant no one could keep an 'uncommon' weapon like a cannon in their front yard.
Go buy your own island where you can walk around naked carrying a beer and an assault rifle to your heart's content. While you're an American citizen, however, you sometimes have to give up being able to do what you want to do when it has a negative impact on the rest of the citizens.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 5, 2019 13:21:44 GMT -5
Boy you anti gun libs are terrified. If you walk into a room and you know at least half the people are armed would you really be dumb enough to start shooting? I bet most of these nuts aren't that dumb. So, your premise here is that the people who commit random mass shootings would stop doing it if there was a possibility the outcome would be negative for them?? Because they are critical thinkers who weigh all their options and choose the scenario where no harm can come to them in the commission of their crime? And your other premise is that the people who desperately feel the need to have a loaded weapon on them at all times are LESS fearful than people who aren't scared to go out in public unarmed? So many logical fallacies in so few words. Did I say that? Go back to second grade and learn reading comprehension. If enough folks are armed and willing to shoot back, the idiocy stops - one way or another.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 5, 2019 13:25:15 GMT -5
happy, any ban is an infringement. Robin your liberties are infringed on all the time.
You can't drive 100 MPH on the freeway, even if you have a car that can go that fast.
You can't walk around naked in public. You can't drink beer on a public street (except in Savannah, GA).
The second amendment refers to 'commonly used' weapons (which at the time, would have been muskets and flintlocks) so even then, I'm assuming that meant no one could keep an 'uncommon' weapon like a cannon in their front yard.
Go buy your own island where you can walk around naked carrying a beer and an assault rifle to your heart's content. While you're an American citizen, however, you sometimes have to give up being able to do what you want to do when it has a negative impact on the rest of the citizens.
Unacceptable. The second refers to weapons needed to overthrow the government (the whole purpose of the 2A). If the govt has it, so should the citizens.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,104
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 5, 2019 13:32:07 GMT -5
Robin your liberties are infringed on all the time.
You can't drive 100 MPH on the freeway, even if you have a car that can go that fast.
You can't walk around naked in public. You can't drink beer on a public street (except in Savannah, GA).
The second amendment refers to 'commonly used' weapons (which at the time, would have been muskets and flintlocks) so even then, I'm assuming that meant no one could keep an 'uncommon' weapon like a cannon in their front yard.
Go buy your own island where you can walk around naked carrying a beer and an assault rifle to your heart's content. While you're an American citizen, however, you sometimes have to give up being able to do what you want to do when it has a negative impact on the rest of the citizens.
Unacceptable. The second refers to weapons needed to overthrow the government (the whole purpose of the 2A). If the govt has it, so should the citizens. THIS is now one of the dumbest things I have ever read. A new government purposely creating "rights" to contribute to its own overthrow? It is not possible to be dumber nor more wrong than this.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 5, 2019 13:46:42 GMT -5
Unacceptable. The second refers to weapons needed to overthrow the government (the whole purpose of the 2A). If the govt has it, so should the citizens. THIS is now one of the dumbest things I have ever read. A new government purposely creating "rights" to contribute to its own overthrow? It is not possible to be dumber nor more wrong than this. Except, you just were. Back to first grade and this time try harder.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 13:57:45 GMT -5
Robin your liberties are infringed on all the time.
You can't drive 100 MPH on the freeway, even if you have a car that can go that fast.
You can't walk around naked in public. You can't drink beer on a public street (except in Savannah, GA).
The second amendment refers to 'commonly used' weapons (which at the time, would have been muskets and flintlocks) so even then, I'm assuming that meant no one could keep an 'uncommon' weapon like a cannon in their front yard.
Go buy your own island where you can walk around naked carrying a beer and an assault rifle to your heart's content. While you're an American citizen, however, you sometimes have to give up being able to do what you want to do when it has a negative impact on the rest of the citizens.
Unacceptable. The second refers to weapons needed to overthrow the government (the whole purpose of the 2A). If the govt has it, so should the citizens. yes. it refers to keeping those weapons OUT OF THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT. we gave up that ghost under Wilson.
you really think your pea shooter is any use against a Murray M1A1?
you could take out an entire village with one of those things without even getting a nick.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 13:59:43 GMT -5
Unacceptable. The second refers to weapons needed to overthrow the government (the whole purpose of the 2A). If the govt has it, so should the citizens. THIS is now one of the dumbest things I have ever read. A new government purposely creating "rights" to contribute to its own overthrow? It is not possible to be dumber nor more wrong than this. spot on.
the amendments are ANTI-FEDERALIST. they preserve rights for the citizenry that the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT AND SHOULD NEVER POSESS.
one of those rights is the right to bear arms. it does NOT belong with the government, AT ALL. but we gave up that freedom a century ago.
it's over. the 2nd Amendment failed.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,104
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 5, 2019 14:02:04 GMT -5
THIS is now one of the dumbest things I have ever read. A new government purposely creating "rights" to contribute to its own overthrow? It is not possible to be dumber nor more wrong than this. Except, you just were. Back to first grade and this time try harder. Again you have nothing. Unsurprising. You could have contended that the main reason to keep arms was to protect against a tyrannical central government. You would still be wrong but at least you would not have sounded mind-numbingly stupid. Even with that, however, you would have proven nothing about the reason for the Second Amendment or the limitations allowed under it.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,776
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 5, 2019 14:17:53 GMT -5
Robin your liberties are infringed on all the time.
You can't drive 100 MPH on the freeway, even if you have a car that can go that fast.
You can't walk around naked in public. You can't drink beer on a public street (except in Savannah, GA).
The second amendment refers to 'commonly used' weapons (which at the time, would have been muskets and flintlocks) so even then, I'm assuming that meant no one could keep an 'uncommon' weapon like a cannon in their front yard.
Go buy your own island where you can walk around naked carrying a beer and an assault rifle to your heart's content. While you're an American citizen, however, you sometimes have to give up being able to do what you want to do when it has a negative impact on the rest of the citizens.
Unacceptable. The second refers to weapons needed to overthrow the government (the whole purpose of the 2A). If the govt has it, so should the citizens. So, you got some missiles and a battleship parked behind your house?
Should you decide you can no longer tolerate the direction of the federal government, if a tin hatted dictator took over and tried to run everything, we would need to conspire with the military to overthrow the government, like all the South American banana republics do.
If it comes to that, enjoy the show, because I'll be gone by then.
In the meantime, let's focus on keeping military style weapons out of the hands of internal terrorists, who sure as hell don't intent to use them to defend out country, but to blow it up. I'm 100% certain the founding fathers would approve.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 5, 2019 14:19:15 GMT -5
Yup! I can't wait until we can raid the local armory.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Aug 5, 2019 14:22:18 GMT -5
So, your premise here is that the people who commit random mass shootings would stop doing it if there was a possibility the outcome would be negative for them?? Because they are critical thinkers who weigh all their options and choose the scenario where no harm can come to them in the commission of their crime? And your other premise is that the people who desperately feel the need to have a loaded weapon on them at all times are LESS fearful than people who aren't scared to go out in public unarmed? So many logical fallacies in so few words. Did I say that? Go back to second grade and learn reading comprehension. If enough folks are armed and willing to shoot back, the idiocy stops - one way or another.
Yes, you did. That is what your words mean. If that's not what they were supposed to mean it is the problem of the author, not the reader.
Your original proposal of every single adult being compelled to walk around armed and ready was stupid. Stunningly stupid. Then you took that almost unimaginably bad idea, and managed to make it even worse with a series of incomprehensible defenses and childish insults. And yet, even with lots of people around you here armed with facts and greater intelligence, the idiocy hasn't stopped. It seems your theory does not hold water.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,776
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 5, 2019 14:23:43 GMT -5
Great. Roving bands of Barney Fife's screaming 'citizens' arrest' and shooting themselves and each other in a mad scramble to reduce this country to a Mad Max thunderdome.
I'll be in Canada, helping to build The Wall.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 5, 2019 14:44:07 GMT -5
Did I say that? Go back to second grade and learn reading comprehension. If enough folks are armed and willing to shoot back, the idiocy stops - one way or another.
Yes, you did. That is what your words mean. If that's not what they were supposed to mean it is the problem of the author, not the reader.
Your original proposal of every single adult being compelled to walk around armed and ready was stupid. Stunningly stupid. Then you took that almost unimaginably bad idea, and managed to make it even worse with a series of incomprehensible defenses and childish insults. And yet, even with lots of people around you here armed with facts and greater intelligence, the idiocy hasn't stopped. It seems your theory does not hold water.
Only in the liberal diminished capacity mind. Facts? Intelligence? No way! Wishes and dreams.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 14:54:04 GMT -5
Unacceptable. The second refers to weapons needed to overthrow the government (the whole purpose of the 2A). If the govt has it, so should the citizens. So, you got some missiles and a battleship parked behind your house?
Should you decide you can no longer tolerate the direction of the federal government, if a tin hatted dictator took over and tried to run everything, we would need to conspire with the military to overthrow the government, like all the South American banana republics do.
If it comes to that, enjoy the show, because I'll be gone by then.
In the meantime, let's focus on keeping military style weapons out of the hands of internal terrorists, who sure as hell don't intent to use them to defend out country, but to blow it up. I'm 100% certain the founding fathers would approve.
that would follow logically.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Aug 5, 2019 14:54:09 GMT -5
Yes, you did. That is what your words mean. If that's not what they were supposed to mean it is the problem of the author, not the reader.
Your original proposal of every single adult being compelled to walk around armed and ready was stupid. Stunningly stupid. Then you took that almost unimaginably bad idea, and managed to make it even worse with a series of incomprehensible defenses and childish insults. And yet, even with lots of people around you here armed with facts and greater intelligence, the idiocy hasn't stopped. It seems your theory does not hold water.
Only in the liberal diminished capacity mind. Facts? Intelligence? No way! Wishes and dreams. LOL. I'm surprised you're not a huge believer in the miracle of wishes and dreams, given the stock frightened conservatives put in the magical powers of "thoughts and prayers".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 14:55:52 GMT -5
Yes, you did. That is what your words mean. If that's not what they were supposed to mean it is the problem of the author, not the reader.
Your original proposal of every single adult being compelled to walk around armed and ready was stupid. Stunningly stupid. Then you took that almost unimaginably bad idea, and managed to make it even worse with a series of incomprehensible defenses and childish insults. And yet, even with lots of people around you here armed with facts and greater intelligence, the idiocy hasn't stopped. It seems your theory does not hold water.
Only in the liberal diminished capacity mind.
my IQ is 135. what's yours?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 5, 2019 17:14:29 GMT -5
Whatever point below 100 it might be at is in jeopardy of going lower by the continued idiocy of the blue robin posts. It’s some kind of drug induced fever dream to think forcing everyone to carry is any kind of problem solver.
After reading the posts it’s quite clear there are no logic and reasoning skills as to what the outcome of such paranoid stupidity would be. What’s wrong with these wack job gun addicts anyway?
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Aug 5, 2019 17:32:14 GMT -5
Only in the liberal diminished capacity mind. Facts? Intelligence? No way! Wishes and dreams. LOL. I'm surprised you're not a huge believer in the miracle of wishes and dreams, given the stock frightened conservatives put in the magical powers of "thoughts and prayers". whats wrong with thoughts and prayers. If someone on here has a loved one that dies or is ill that is what all wishes them but have a mass shooting oh thoughts and prayers are made fun of like there is something else that needs to be done. So sad the double standards
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,120
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 5, 2019 17:40:22 GMT -5
LOL. I'm surprised you're not a huge believer in the miracle of wishes and dreams, given the stock frightened conservatives put in the magical powers of "thoughts and prayers". whats wrong with thoughts and prayers. If someone on here has a loved one that dies or is ill that is what all wishes them but have a mass shooting oh thoughts and prayers are made fun of like there is something else that needs to be done. So sad the double standards Those thoughts and prayers don't seem to be stopping mass murders. The shooters and mass murderers just keep coming.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,104
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 5, 2019 17:45:37 GMT -5
LOL. I'm surprised you're not a huge believer in the miracle of wishes and dreams, given the stock frightened conservatives put in the magical powers of "thoughts and prayers". whats wrong with thoughts and prayers. If someone on here has a loved one that dies or is ill that is what all wishes them but have a mass shooting oh thoughts and prayers are made fun of like there is something else that needs to be done. So sad the double standards There IS something to be done by the useless idiots in the GOP who would rather do nothing than actually do their jobs. "Thoughts and prayers" rings very hollow when that is all they are willing to do. Maybe stop taking gun money and think about what is actually good for the country and its people? Nahhhhhh.....
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 5, 2019 18:05:39 GMT -5
Robin your liberties are infringed on all the time.
You can't drive 100 MPH on the freeway, even if you have a car that can go that fast.
You can't walk around naked in public. You can't drink beer on a public street (except in Savannah, GA).
The second amendment refers to 'commonly used' weapons (which at the time, would have been muskets and flintlocks) so even then, I'm assuming that meant no one could keep an 'uncommon' weapon like a cannon in their front yard.
Go buy your own island where you can walk around naked carrying a beer and an assault rifle to your heart's content. While you're an American citizen, however, you sometimes have to give up being able to do what you want to do when it has a negative impact on the rest of the citizens.
Unacceptable. The second refers to weapons needed to overthrow the government (the whole purpose of the 2A). If the govt has it, so should the citizens. Great! So, if I wanted to stockpile biological warfare ingredients, like anthrax, I should be allowed to do it.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 5, 2019 18:07:26 GMT -5
How about surface-to-air missiles?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 5, 2019 18:08:56 GMT -5
LOL. I'm surprised you're not a huge believer in the miracle of wishes and dreams, given the stock frightened conservatives put in the magical powers of "thoughts and prayers". whats wrong with thoughts and prayers. If someone on here has a loved one that dies or is ill that is what all wishes them but have a mass shooting oh thoughts and prayers are made fun of like there is something else that needs to be done. So sad the double standards Something else does need to be done. All the thoughts and prayers are doing jack-shit.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,776
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 5, 2019 18:10:15 GMT -5
LOL. I'm surprised you're not a huge believer in the miracle of wishes and dreams, given the stock frightened conservatives put in the magical powers of "thoughts and prayers". whats wrong with thoughts and prayers. If someone on here has a loved one that dies or is ill that is what all wishes them but have a mass shooting oh thoughts and prayers are made fun of like there is something else that needs to be done. So sad the double standards If I wish someone I know thoughts and prayers it's because I want them, as an individual, to know I care about them and I'm thinking about them.
When politicians offer up 'thoughts and prayers' to a city after a gun violence tragedy, that seems to be code for 'I'm capable of making an effort to investigate and create laws for something that might actually do something to help reduce these terrible tragedies, but because I'm 1) scared of the NRA or 2) too inert to do anything actually useful I'll issue the standard 'thoughts and prayers' response.
Note that I've referred to them as 'politicians' - I'm blaming all of them, of any party. They all seem to be incapable of doing anything, on many issues, but this one is the most annoying to me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 18:15:08 GMT -5
How about surface-to-air missiles? I really want some of those, for shooting down government (or corporate) drones. I would literally buy one TONIGHT if they were available.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 5, 2019 18:27:24 GMT -5
How about surface-to-air missiles? I really want some of those, for shooting down government (or corporate) drones. I would literally buy one TONIGHT if they were available.
I want the anthrax.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 18:47:21 GMT -5
I really want some of those, for shooting down government (or corporate) drones. I would literally buy one TONIGHT if they were available.
I want the anthrax. LOL! what about the chemical weapons ban?
|
|