Gun supporters, please respond to this

[gabosaurus]

I am presenting this letter to the editor from a New Zealand newspaper concerning the Second Amendment without comment:


First up, the US 'democratic' process was designed to keep power in the hands of the privileged few. It is a long way from the ideal of the Athenian democracy, and was deliberately designed that way by writers of the constitution. Mechanisms like the electoral college were incorporated into the process to ensure that the popular vote could be overridden. Therefore, there has hardly been a 'long creep of oligarch-like pollution'. The US system has always been that way.

Secondly, while there are some theories that the Second Amendment is about protecting against tyranny, that is just one theory, and is not explicit in the clause. All it states is that "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". That says that keeping and bearing arms should only be in the context of a well regulated militia, not a free for all. Also, it doesn't say 'security of the state against tyranny', just 'security of a free state' which actually seems to me to be more about protection of the state from external threats (and also there are theories that it was at least in part about the ability to suppress slave rebellions). And anyway, who gets to define what is tyranny? Right wing gun-toting wing nuts in the USA today accuse Obama of tyranny. Does that mean they would be fully justified in staging an armed uprising?

If tyranny exists, then it doesn't require constitutional protection of firearms ownership to rise up against it (eg Syria, Libya, Egypt), and anyway, the US government is always going to have bigger better weapons to crush any armed rebellion.

The second amendment has been gratuitously misinterpreted and abused by the NRA and gun rights advocates in the US to propagate the unfettered ownership of dangerous weapons in ways that the framers of the constitution never contemplated.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8217690/US-second-amendment-deters-tyranny

[jimnyc]

If tyranny exists, then it doesn't require constitutional protection of firearms ownership to rise up against it (eg Syria, Libya, Egypt),

The USA has supplied all 3 places with weapons, and Syria it was directly to citizens/rebels to protect and defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

[Robert A Whit]

I am presenting this letter to the editor from a New Zealand newspaper without comment:



First up, the US 'democratic' process was designed to keep power in the hands of the privileged few. It is a long way from the ideal of the Athenian democracy, and was deliberately designed that way by writers of the constitution. Mechanisms like the electoral college were incorporated into the process to ensure that the popular vote could be overridden. Therefore, there has hardly been a 'long creep of oligarch-like pollution'. The US system has always been that way.

Secondly, while there are some theories that the Second Amendment is about protecting against tyranny, that is just one theory, and is not explicit in the clause. All it states is that "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". That says that keeping and bearing arms should only be in the context of a well regulated militia, not a free for all. Also, it doesn't say 'security of the state against tyranny', just 'security of a free state' which actually seems to me to be more about protection of the state from external threats (and also there are theories that it was at least in part about the ability to suppress slave rebellions). And anyway, who gets to define what is tyranny? Right wing gun-toting wing nuts in the USA today accuse Obama of tyranny. Does that mean they would be fully justified in staging an armed uprising?

If tyranny exists, then it doesn't require constitutional protection of firearms ownership to rise up against it (eg Syria, Libya, Egypt), and anyway, the US government is always going to have bigger better weapons to crush any armed rebellion.

The second amendment has been gratuitously misinterpreted and abused by the NRA and gun rights advocates in the US to propagate the unfettered ownership of dangerous weapons in ways that the framers of the constitution never contemplated.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/...deters-tyranny (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8217690/US-second-amendment-deters-tyranny)

Actually it is the above author that has gratuitously misinterpreted the 2nd amendment.

Notice in the second Amendment it was designed to protect the rights of the people. And it named the right. And it stated that right shall not be infringed.

No charge for the lesson in logic.

I have read a long explanation that was the best I read.

So, I am no gun nut, I am a rights nut.

[jafar00]

It's exactly how I interpret it too.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

A well regulated (meaning govt controlled) militia to help defend the country against external attack. Not for armed rebellion. If you were a legislator at the time, it would be kinda dumb to build in legislation that could result in you being legally shot by a mob of heavily armed thugs.


The USA has supplied all 3 places with weapons, and Syria it was directly to citizens/rebels to protect and defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

What weapons were given to the Egyptians? Not counting those that were given to the Mubarak regime which were then used against the protesters of course. ;)

http://scottlong1980.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/smithwesson.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

Then that jerk D- Senator Diane Feinstein is trying to do just that.

She has no right to try to remove rights.

[jimnyc]

It's exactly how I interpret it too.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

A well regulated (meaning govt controlled) militia to help defend the country against external attack. Not for armed rebellion. If you were a legislator at the time, it would be kinda dumb to build in legislation that could result in you being legally shot by a mob of heavily armed thugs.

A government controlled militia to defend against external attacks? You just described our entire military. The point of the 2nd is for the regular citizens to defend themselves. I assure you, the founders weren't dumb, they would have just stated military if that's what they meant. Back then, a "militia" of citizens were often formed.



What weapons were given to the Egyptians? Not counting those that were given to the Mubarak regime which were then used against the protesters of course. ;)


We give TONS of money AND military weapons and such to Egypt - ever year - as part of the Israel/Egypt peace treaty. I'm just pointing out that tons of weapons are given to all 3 places.

[revelarts]

I am presenting this letter to the editor from a New Zealand newspaper concerning the Second Amendment without comment:



http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8217690/US-second-amendment-deters-tyranny

Gabby

As far as the country being set up to favor the privileged land owning white males. Yes it was. Was it perfect by no means. But they utilized language and prinicals that lifted the system beyond those narrow boundaries. Was the Athenian democracy perfect , um heck no. Majority rule is not ideal by any stretch.
the American Constitution was set up as something different and acknowledges MORE human rights and liberty than most (if not ANY) western gov'ts ever did. If your trying to make a case for anarchy or hard libertarianism that's fine. your right there was a bit of the elitist bent to the U.S. constitution as well, Some of that is pointed out vividly by the Anti-federalist papers. But it's Still far and away better than any other form of large gov't i've seen.
As Churchill said
"...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

concerning the 2nd amendment
Tyr or maybe it was RSR over in another post Quoted some the framer's understandings of arms were about.
here are a few more.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…"
-- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, printed in "Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts", at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

All due respect Gab and Jafar
and the writer from New Zealand but your interpretations are off.

here are more quotes from the framers and other of that time.

...............

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. "
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


"...When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... "
---George Mason Quote from the Virginia convention:

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "
******** ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.


please respond to that.

[mundame]

Wow. Not really a trusting man, James Madison..........

And they think people are non-PC TODAY!! ;)

[aboutime]

What does an opinion from New Zealand have to do with our 2nd Amendment rights here in the U.S.A.

People from all around the world have their own opinions about everything under the sun. And they are allowed to voice them.

But I fail to see how anyone who does not have the freedoms, rights, and liberties under Our Constitution, can make a valid complaint, or opinion.

[Kathianne]

I am presenting this letter to the editor from a New Zealand newspaper concerning the Second Amendment without comment:



http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8217690/US-second-amendment-deters-tyranny

I would say that the writer hadn't had much US Civics:


First up, the US 'democratic' process was designed to keep power in the hands of the privileged few. It is a long way from the ideal of the Athenian democracy, and was deliberately designed that way by writers of the constitution. Mechanisms like the electoral college were incorporated into the process to ensure that the popular vote could be overridden. Therefore, there has hardly been a 'long creep of oligarch-like pollution'. The US system has always been that way. The electoral college was part of a compromised to protect the rights of small states, (NJ) against the larger states, (VA):

http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/the-founding-and-the-constitution/section2.rhtml

Too bad so few understand how the Electoral College came into existence and why. BTW, today NJ is the 11th most populated state, VA is 12th. Funny how things change over time. Oh yeah, the method of assigning representatives to the House change with population.




Secondly, while there are some theories that the Second Amendment is about protecting against tyranny, that is just one theory, and is not explicit in the clause. All it states is that "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". That says that keeping and bearing arms should only be in the context of a well regulated militia, not a free for all. Also, it doesn't say 'security of the state against tyranny', just 'security of a free state' which actually seems to me to be more about protection of the state from external threats (and also there are theories that it was at least in part about the ability to suppress slave rebellions). And anyway, who gets to define what is tyranny? Right wing gun-toting wing nuts in the USA today accuse Obama of tyranny. Does that mean they would be fully justified in staging an armed uprising?

If tyranny exists, then it doesn't require constitutional protection of firearms ownership to rise up against it (eg Syria, Libya, Egypt), and anyway, the US government is always going to have bigger better weapons to crush any armed rebellion.

The second amendment has been gratuitously misinterpreted and abused by the NRA and gun rights advocates in the US to propagate the unfettered ownership of dangerous weapons in ways that the framers of the constitution never contemplated.

Actually there is a record regarding both the rights via the amendment and one of those even bridges with the compromise between large and small states, Federalist 39. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp)

In Federalist 46 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp), Madison makes clear the importance of the second amendment.


Gabby

As far as the country being set up to favor the privileged land owning white males. Yes it was. Was it perfect by no means. But they utilized language and prinicals that lifted the system beyond those narrow boundaries. Was the Athenian democracy perfect , um heck no. Majority rule is not ideal by any stretch.
the American Constitution was set up as something different and acknowledges MORE human rights and liberty than most (if not ANY) western gov'ts ever did. If your trying to make a case for anarchy or hard libertarianism that's fine. your right there was a bit of the elitist bent to the U.S. constitution as well, Some of that is pointed out vividly by the Anti-federalist papers. But it's Still far and away better than any other form of large gov't i've seen.
As Churchill said
"...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

concerning the 2nd amendment
Tyr or maybe it was RSR over in another post Quoted some the framer's understandings of arms were about.
here are a few more.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…"
-- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, printed in "Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts", at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

All due respect Gab and Jafar
and the writer from New Zealand but your interpretations are off.

here are more quotes from the framers and other of that time.

...............

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. "
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


"...When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... "
---George Mason Quote from the Virginia convention:

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "
******** ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.


please respond to that.

Excellent, I just went for the basics. Sorry I didn't read the whole thread before posting.

[ConHog]

Then that jerk D- Senator Diane Feinstein is trying to do just that.

She has no right to try to remove rights.

Actually , she has EVERY right to try to remove , well actually REPEAL, the second Amendment.

The very same document that you claim you cherish provides that the government shall not infringe on her freedom of speech, it also provides her a process for trying to amend the self same document up to and including repealing the second amendment if she can swing it.

It seems that you are not actually a rights' nut, you are a Robert's rights' nut.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Gabby

As far as the country being set up to favor the privileged land owning white males. Yes it was. Was it perfect by no means. But they utilized language and prinicals that lifted the system beyond those narrow boundaries. Was the Athenian democracy perfect , um heck no. Majority rule is not ideal by any stretch.
the American Constitution was set up as something different and acknowledges MORE human rights and liberty than most (if not ANY) western gov'ts ever did. If your trying to make a case for anarchy or hard libertarianism that's fine. your right there was a bit of the elitist bent to the U.S. constitution as well, Some of that is pointed out vividly by the Anti-federalist papers. But it's Still far and away better than any other form of large gov't i've seen.
As Churchill said
"...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

concerning the 2nd amendment
Tyr or maybe it was RSR over in another post Quoted some the framer's understandings of arms were about.
here are a few more.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…"
-- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, printed in "Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts", at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

All due respect Gab and Jafar
and the writer from New Zealand but your interpretations are off.

here are more quotes from the framers and other of that time.

...............

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. "
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


"...When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... "
---George Mason Quote from the Virginia convention:

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "
******** ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.


please respond to that.

Do we have a 'Post of the Day' contest? If so, I vote for that one (points up).:clap:

[revelarts]

kath marcus thanks
I didn't note the source for the collection of quotes
it's this http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html)

It's an extremely informative site on the issue.
http://www.guncite.com/



...Evidence of an Individual Right

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803) (http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm), St. George Tucker (http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/bios/biotuck.cfm) (see also (http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/bios/biotuck.cfm)), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."

In the appendix (http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d12000.htm) to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense. "Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm))
(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.) ...


http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

[ConHog]

What does an opinion from New Zealand have to do with our 2nd Amendment rights here in the U.S.A.

People from all around the world have their own opinions about everything under the sun. And they are allowed to voice them.

But I fail to see how anyone who does not have the freedoms, rights, and liberties under Our Constitution, can make a valid complaint, or opinion.

That's a shame, I completely welcome Drummond's posts here and view his opinions about our government and our rights as valid even as I disagree with most of them.

[Missileman]

I am presenting this letter to the editor from a New Zealand newspaper concerning the Second Amendment without comment:



http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8217690/US-second-amendment-deters-tyranny

The idiot needs to take some English classes.

[Nukeman]

Actually , she has EVERY right to try to remove , well actually REPEAL, the second Amendment.

The very same document that you claim you cherish provides that the government shall not infringe on her freedom of speech, it also provides her a process for trying to amend the self same document up to and including repealing the second amendment if she can swing it.

It seems that you are not actually a rights' nut, you are a Robert's rights' nut.I don't see where he was abridging her constitutional right to freedom of speech, he was however complaining of her ATTEMPT to circumvent the 2nd amendment!!! I you failed to see that I am at a lose for your understanding of what he said. Where did he state anything about her right to EXPRESS her beliefs???

[Missileman]

It's exactly how I interpret it too.

Drag your butt to the nearest community college and take some English classes...your grasp of the language is no better than the New Zealander's.

[ConHog]

I don't see where he was abridging her constitutional right to freedom of speech, he was however complaining of her ATTEMPT to circumvent the 2nd amendment!!! I you failed to see that I am at a lose for your understanding of what he said. Where did he state anything about her right to EXPRESS her beliefs???

he plainly said she has no right to try.

He was and is plainly wrong on that point.


The idiot needs to take some English classes.

Please. Have you read some of the posts on this message board, or any other for that matter?

[Nukeman]

he plainly said she has no right to try.

He was and is plainly wrong on that point.
I believe he stated she can not remove a RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


She has no right to try to remove rights.

I would agree she has NO right to remove my constitutional rights.. She can attempt to have constitutional convention and that is fine but that is NOT what she is attempting to do. She is however attempting to circumvent my rights by putting into play an unconstitutional law..... So no she does NOT have the "right" to do that, at least not that way!!!

[ConHog]

I believe he stated she can not remove a RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I would agree she has NO right to remove my constitutional rights.. She can attempt to have constitutional convention and that is fine but that is NOT what she is attempting to do. She is however attempting to circumvent my rights by putting into play an unconstitutional law..... So no she does NOT have the "right" to do that, at least not that way!!!

this

I would agree she has NO right to remove my constitutional rights..

and this

She can attempt to have constitutional convention


are in direct conflict with each other.and I NEVER said that the way she is trying to do it is constitutional. quite the opposite I have in this very thread said otherwise. But that wasn't Robert's argument. He made a flat statement that she has no right to try to change his right. That is an untrue statement.

[Nukeman]

this

I would agree she has NO right to remove my constitutional rights..

and this

She can attempt to have constitutional convention


are in direct conflict with each other.and I NEVER said that the way she is trying to do it is constitutional. quite the opposite I have in this very thread said otherwise. But that wasn't Robert's argument. He made a flat statement that she has no right to try to change his right. That is an untrue statement.
No they are NOT in conflict with one another she can not remove a constitutional right, she can however request a constitutional convention that would allow for the modification of those rights. So after the convention the NEW constitutional rights would be issued , so they are NOT in contradiction of one another... they are however the PROPER order in which we do things!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kathianne]

That's a shame, I completely welcome Drummond's posts here and view his opinions about our government and our rights as valid even as I disagree with most of them.

Drummond seems to have bothered to know how our system differs from the UK's. Gabby, at least from the OP, not so much so. Oh yeah, she's an American. Ok, then.

[ConHog]

No they are NOT in conflict with one another she can not remove a constitutional right, she can however request a constitutional convention that would allow for the modification of those rights. So after the convention the NEW constitutional rights would be issued , so they are NOT in contradiction of one another... they are however the PROPER order in which we do things!!!!!!!!!!!

Correct, there IS a procedure to remove your rights, or more correctly to remove your protection from the government interfering with your rights, and she can use that method to do exactly what Robert, and yourself have said she has no right to do.

Now how could she possibly attempt to do something that you and Robert claim she has NO right to try to do Nuke? It's just illogical to suggest that is the case.

The PROPER statement for you and/or Robert to have made would have been to say "she has no right to change our rights without going through the process of amending the constitution" if Robert had said THAT he would have been right, and that IS my exact argument. Her proposed bill is unconstitutional.


Drummond seems to have bothered to know how our system differs from the UK's. Gabby, at least from the OP, not so much so. Oh yeah, she's an American. Ok, then.

You and I both know that there are plenty of Americans (well I mean we take their words that they are American, truthfully we just don't know) that don't know jack shit about most any topic they are talking about on this and other forums Kath, as well as in the media. And that's okay , although I do wish more people including this author would differentiate between an opinion and facts. That isn't a function of her not being an American though.

[Missileman]

Please. Have you read some of the posts on this message board, or any other for that matter?

Sure, but that doesn't mitigate his obvious error in asserting that the right to bear arms is contingent on service in a militia.

[gabosaurus]

Now that everyone has made a mockery of this thread, it is time for a bit of gun humor.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a2gCFOtaZPo" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[ConHog]

Sure, but that doesn't mitigate his obvious error in asserting that the right to bear arms is contingent on service in a militia.

Of course it doesn't. But sheesh there is only so much time in the day, who has time to go around pointing out EVERY single error posted on even one single forum in a day?

Though, I admit it fun to pick a few posters and run around the board pointing out their obvious errors and lack of logic. Truthfully though I've bored of that because rare is the time when someone just admits to error and that is actually kinda depressing.

[revelarts]

Now that everyone has made a mockery of this thread, it is time for a bit of gun humor.


gabosaurus your thread asked for a response I gave you 1 , will you reply?

Unless your saying that the responses here, in general, made a mockery of the New Zealander's letter, then ok, sure.

cool ad BTW

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610770#post610770)
Then that jerk D- Senator Diane Feinstein is trying to do just that.

She has no right to try to remove rights.






Actually , she has EVERY right to try to remove , well actually REPEAL, the second Amendment.

The very same document that you claim you cherish provides that the government shall not infringe on her freedom of speech, it also provides her a process for trying to amend the self same document up to and including repealing the second amendment if she can swing it.

It seems that you are not actually a rights' nut, you are a Robert's rights' nut.

That was not my claim.

Try one more time. She has no right to remove our rights.

Slower.... she may for any reason seek an amendment. What she is up to is not seeking to remove an amendment. She acts like the amendment does not exist.

Her speech is sacred. But the congress may not infringe on rights.

Any amendment change requires much more than that.

I believe this proves my support for the constitution and of course I claim my part of that right as well.

[ConHog]

That was not my claim.

Try one more time. She has no right to remove our rights.

Slower.... she may for any reason seek an amendment. What she is up to is not seeking to remove an amendment. She acts like the amendment does not exist.

Her speech is sacred. But the congress may not infringe on rights.

Any amendment change requires much more than that.

I believe this proves my support for the constitution and of course I claim my part of that right as well.

I know what you meant Robert. You worded it wrong. I pointed it out. Simple as that. Just admit it and move on.

[Kathianne]

I know what you meant Robert. You worded it wrong. I pointed it out. Simple as that. Just admit it and move on.

Like 'spanking' and 'ass-kicking'? For thee and others.

[ConHog]

Like 'spanking' and 'ass-kicking'? For thee and others.

Yep , just like that.

The difference is of course in the way the person responds to their error being pointed out.

[Kathianne]

Yep , just like that.

The difference is of course in the way the person responds to their error being pointed out.

Yep, like 'everyone should have understood that you 'meant' spanking, not ass-kicking.' Well other than those problem posts where you claimed your definition of 'ass-kicking' was not as everyone else's. Until you changed your position...

[ConHog]

Yep, like 'everyone should have understood that you 'meant' spanking, not ass-kicking.' Well other than those problem posts where you claimed your definition of 'ass-kicking' was not as everyone else's. Until you changed your position...

You're smart enough to grok the difference between the two points. Also, I admitted I just used the wrong words.

At least I used to think you were.

[Kathianne]

You're smart enough to grok the difference between the two points. Also, I admitted I just used the wrong words.

At least I used to think you were.

Actually I don't KNOW you. I have only the record to go by. Truth is, you're really careful with words. So no, I didn't think you meant spanking.

[tailfins]

My support for gun rights boils down to this:
1) Police are incompetent and individuals need to protect themselves from criminals.
2) Guns are a hobby. Who am I to impede someone's pursuit of happiness?

[Robert A Whit]

Correct, there IS a procedure to remove your rights, or more correctly to remove your protection from the government interfering with your rights, and she can use that method to do exactly what Robert, and yourself have said she has no right to do.

Now how could she possibly attempt to do something that you and Robert claim she has NO right to try to do Nuke? It's just illogical to suggest that is the case.

The PROPER statement for you and/or Robert to have made would have been to say "she has no right to change our rights without going through the process of amending the constitution" if Robert had said THAT he would have been right, and that IS my exact argument. Her proposed bill is unconstitutional.

I explained this.

You admit her bill is unconstitutional. That is precisely all you needed to say.

In fact by saying that, you agree with me.

The bill is not to amend jack shit. She wants to take an action that the constitution outlaws by the simple term, right shall not be infringed. When the constitution is amended, some dumb ass woman Senator can't do that alone. And there would be hell to pay should she even try to amend it. She would perhaps never be elected again.

[ConHog]

Actually I don't KNOW you. I have only the record to go by. Truth is, you're really careful with words. So no, I didn't think you meant spanking.

I AM very careful with words, and I say what I mean. And in our family yes when we were told we were gonna get our ass kicked it was nothing more than a spanking, and that's what my kids get. SO when I said ass kicked that's what I meant. When another poster questioned that and used their definition of ass kicked I clarified and said yes I probably used the wrong words since others don't think of an ass kicking as just a spanking.

Further, I realize you don't care for me, but you are above the lack of respect you show. For instance, I have 11K posts here and we have quarreled in quite a few of them and you have even schooled me in more than a few of them, so I KNOW that you are aware that I try to acknowledge when someone has proven me wrong, I know this because I have acknowledged to YOU that you've proven me wrong on an occasion or two, so this lack of respect you show me is bewildering and disappointing.

I could not care less if you like me as a person, I don't care for you as a person. That has nothing to do with respecting you as a poster, and acknowledging the positive things you bring to a debate or admitting that yes for instance you do admit when you've been beaten or what have you.

From this point forward you can consider yourself ignored by me if you can't even manage to return the most basic level of respect.

Sorry Jim, just enough is enough I understand if you thread ban me here, it's irrelevant anyway since I am voluntarily unsubscribing to this thread

[Robert A Whit]

I know what you meant Robert. You worded it wrong. I pointed it out. Simple as that. Just admit it and move on.


I shall leap to my feet, move faster than any speeding bullet, leap over the highest tall building to find out how you proved I am wrong.

I did not word it wrong.

When you admitted she is doing something unconstitutional, you are correct. She can try to go pick up an Abrahms Tank too. But till she manages to do that, she is full of shit.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610770#post610770)
Then that jerk D- Senator Diane Feinstein is trying to do just that.
She has no right to try to remove rights.






Actually , she has EVERY right to try to remove , well actually REPEAL, the second Amendment.



She is not amending. She is infringing. And that by the words of the amendment is not legal.

Show me other amendments with the terms of the 2nd, namely that it can't be infringed on?

Even you admit what she wants to do is not constitutional and that was my point.

[Kathianne]

I AM very careful with words, and I say what I mean. And in our family yes when we were told we were gonna get our ass kicked it was nothing more than a spanking, and that's what my kids get. SO when I said ass kicked that's what I meant. When another poster questioned that and used their definition of ass kicked I clarified and said yes I probably used the wrong words since others don't think of an ass kicking as just a spanking.
No, you clarified as to using the wrong terminology and also that you'd made it clear that spanking and 'ass-kicking' are not the same.


Further, I realize you don't care for me, but you are above the lack of respect you show. For instance, I have 11K posts here and we have quarreled in quite a few of them and you have even schooled me in more than a few of them, so I KNOW that you are aware that I try to acknowledge when someone has proven me wrong, I know this because I have acknowledged to YOU that you've proven me wrong on an occasion or two, so this lack of respect you show me is bewildering and disappointing.

I could not care less if you like me as a person, I don't care for you as a person. That has nothing to do with respecting you as a poster, and acknowledging the positive things you bring to a debate or admitting that yes for instance you do admit when you've been beaten or what have you.

From this point forward you can consider yourself ignored by me if you can't even manage to return the most basic level of respect.

Sorry Jim, just enough is enough I understand if you thread ban me here, it's irrelevant anyway since I am voluntarily unsubscribing to this thread

Actually this last bit is interesting. You've spent several posts saying 'you used to respect, blah, blah, blah... My liking you or not has zero to do with posting conversations. Holding you accountable for what you say, what I think you mean? Sure, goes with the territory. Don't like, feel free to ignore.

[Robert A Whit]

he plainly said she has no right to try.

He was and is plainly wrong on that point.

Hey DB, you ignored the title of my remarks Why do you flat ignore the title?

She by law may not infringe. Geezus damned crimney.

I have to check one more time but I don't recall any other amendment being so explicit. She wants to infringe. That as you should admit is unconstitutional.

For you to totally have a blackout on the term infringe proves you do not read what others write.

(DB stands for something by the way)

[Little-Acorn]

It's exactly how I interpret it too.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

A well regulated (meaning govt controlled) militia to help defend the country against external attack. Not for armed rebellion.

The correct interpretation has been pointed out to jafar bafore. Apparently he thinks that enough time has gone by, that people will forget how he got the truth rammed down his throat back then, and so he can start promoting the same lie again as though it hadn't already been debunked.

So, once again:

--------------------------------------------

http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm


The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

.

[tailfins]

Actually I don't KNOW you. I have only the record to go by. Truth is, you're really careful with words. So no, I didn't think you meant spanking.

He means spanking only when he's sober.

[Kathianne]

He means spanking only when he's sober.

In actuality, I think he was using hyperbole with 'ass-kicking,' though he tried to hide behind 'a different definition.' Problem was, he'd made it clear he understood the definition earlier, others called him on that, not me.

[Robert A Whit]

this

I would agree she has NO right to remove my constitutional rights..

and this

She can attempt to have constitutional convention


are in direct conflict with each other.and I NEVER said that the way she is trying to do it is constitutional. quite the opposite I have in this very thread said otherwise. But that wasn't Robert's argument. He made a flat statement that she has no right to try to change his right. That is an untrue statement.

Wow. when you chew a leg, you refuse to let go.

The word infringe is in the wording of that amendment, and it happens to be part of the highest law. Can you think of any law in the constitution that one can infringe on?

Even of you think all the amendments can be infringed on, at least the second amendment is very carefully crafted to stop anybody from infringing.

It is absolutely an absolute right to self defend yourself.

I would love to see her infringe on Roe v Wade.

[tailfins]

In actuality, I think he was using hyperbole with 'ass-kicking,' though he tried to hide behind 'a different definition.' Problem was, he'd made it clear he understood the definition earlier, others called him on that, not me.

That may be, but would you trust somebody who admits they drink to make that judgement when they're not sober?

[Robert A Whit]

The correct interpretation has been pointed out to jafar bafore. Apparently he thinks that enough time has gone by, that people will forget how he got the truth rammed down his throat back then, and so he can start promoting the same lie again as though it hadn't already been debunked.

So, once again:

--------------------------------------------

http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm


The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

.

Thank you very much. This is the explanation I was speaking of in my earliest posts. It is the BEST I have read.

My point was based on the fact that Sen. Diane Feinstin is once more trying to infringe.

I am not clear that an attempt to amend this one could stand up to the tests applied by the Supreme Court. I think the court would use the term infringe as a choke hold on Sen. Feinstein.

[jimnyc]

Wow. when you chew a leg, you refuse to let go.

:lol:
:coffee:

[Marcus Aurelius]

he plainly said she has no right to try.

He was and is plainly wrong on that point.

technically, you are correct. It is indeed her 'right' to try and repeal the 2nd amendment, if that is her intent and if she can swing the votes in the House, Senate, get a Presidential signature and, I believe, get the 3/4's of the states to ratify it.

Not gonna happen.

[aboutime]

technically, you are correct. It is indeed her 'right' to try and repeal the 2nd amendment, if that is her intent and if she can swing the votes in the House, Senate, get a Presidential signature and, I believe, get the 3/4's of the states to ratify it.

Not gonna happen.


Marcus. I also heard today that SHE used to carry a .44 magnum pistol. And that was her right as well. Feinstein is just playing the typical, political game of inciting anger. Just as Obama and friends have been doing.

Their only problem is. The CONSTITUTION stands in their way. Any attempts to go around it will be met with SCOTUS. And maybe, Feinstein is just ready to get out of Politics, since she could obviously make MORE OBAMA BUCKS...on just the Interest of her investments in Ammo, and Guns.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The correct interpretation has been pointed out to jafar bafore. Apparently he thinks that enough time has gone by, that people will forget how he got the truth rammed down his throat back then, and so he can start promoting the same lie again as though it hadn't already been debunked.

So, once again:

--------------------------------------------

http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm


The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

.

outstanding post. I especially liked the part in RED.:clap:

[ConHog]

technically, you are correct. It is indeed her 'right' to try and repeal the 2nd amendment, if that is her intent and if she can swing the votes in the House, Senate, get a Presidential signature and, I believe, get the 3/4's of the states to ratify it.

Not gonna happen.

I agree , it won't happen. She is welcome to try. Robert was wrong in stating that she didn't have a right.

[Robert A Whit]

I agree , it won't happen. She is welcome to try. Robert was wrong in stating that she didn't have a right.

So, you allege what she did is constitutional after you declared it is not constitutional?

And you still believe she can infringe?

Well, smart as you claim, no. Stubborn, indeed.

I never once brought up the issue, you did. I did not speak of amendments. I spoke to the actual words of the amendment, namely infringing on rights.

[ConHog]

So, you allege what she did is constitutional after you declared it is not constitutional?

And you still believe she can infringe?

Well, smart as you claim, no. Stubborn, indeed.

I never once brought up the issue, you did. I did not speak of amendments. I spoke to the actual words of the amendment, namely infringing on rights.

you said she could not attempt to infringe on your right to own guns Robert. You are wrong, SHe has the right to say whatever she wants and she has the right to to change you rights via amendment.

The fact that she is going about it the wrong way is irrelevant to the fact that there is a right way and you didn't acknowledge that in your post.

[Missileman]

you said she could not attempt to infringe on your right to own guns Robert. You are wrong, SHe has the right to say whatever she wants and she has the right to to change you rights via amendment.

The fact that she is going about it the wrong way is irrelevant to the fact that there is a right way and you didn't acknowledge that in your post.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case, our rights make her wrong. Since actually violating someone's rights is illegal, I'm not sure that your argument she has the "right" to attempt it via the 1st Amendment carries much water. Attempting an illegal act is usually illegal also...think murder(attempted murder), rape(attempted rape), etc.

[aboutime]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case, our rights make her wrong. Since actually violating someone's rights is illegal, I'm not sure that your argument she has the "right" to attempt it via the 1st Amendment carries much water. Attempting an illegal act is usually illegal also...think murder(attempted murder), rape(attempted rape), etc.


Missileman. Surely, everyone must know by now. CORNHOG doesn't really care what anyone else thinks, or says. Only CORNHOG is correct, and everyone else is ALWAYS WRONG.

That's the price we all must pay to entertain IDIOTS who never want to hear anyone else tell them anything. Ask CORNHOG. He'll agree with me.

[Kathianne]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case, our rights make her wrong. Since actually violating someone's rights is illegal, I'm not sure that your argument she has the "right" to attempt it via the 1st Amendment carries much water. Attempting an illegal act is usually illegal also...think murder(attempted murder), rape(attempted rape), etc.

He mention the 1st, imo, only as an aside. He was mostly arguing that she COULD take it to a proposal for a constitutional amendment, acknowledging dead in the water. The whole argument in other words, was for post count.

[bingster]

I am presenting this letter to the editor from a New Zealand newspaper without comment:



Actually it is the above author that has gratuitously misinterpreted the 2nd amendment.

Notice in the second Amendment it was designed to protect the rights of the people. And it named the right. And it stated that right shall not be infringed.

No charge for the lesson in logic.

I have read a long explanation that was the best I read.

So, I am no gun nut, I am a rights nut.

But, you did what a lot of people do. You parsed it to mean what you wanted it to mean. Taken in it's entirety, he has a legitimate point. Supreme Court judged against that point already, but he still has a point.


Then that jerk D- Senator Diane Feinstein is trying to do just that.

She has no right to try to remove rights.

What "arms"? Guided missles? Light anti-tank weapons? Atom bombs? Hand grenade? Of course not, right? For the same reason the 2nd amendment can be restricted to ban "assault weapons" defined however we want it to be defined.





That was not my claim.

Try one more time. She has no right to remove our rights.

Slower.... she may for any reason seek an amendment. What she is up to is not seeking to remove an amendment. She acts like the amendment does not exist.

Her speech is sacred. But the congress may not infringe on rights.

Any amendment change requires much more than that.

I believe this proves my support for the constitution and of course I claim my part of that right as well.
Justice Scalia disagrees with you as I've posted before.


Yep, like 'everyone should have understood that you 'meant' spanking, not ass-kicking.' Well other than those problem posts where you claimed your definition of 'ass-kicking' was not as everyone else's. Until you changed your position...

Can't you argue with his point instead of his method? You like to do that. You can't argue the point so you focus in on method, a word, a phase, a list, etc... Have an argument or don't. There are a lot of people on this forum who can't seem to say anything without an insult. Usually I just tollerate it and move on; or I make my argument and mention it, and move on. Do you have an argument? Move on.


My support for gun rights boils down to this:
1) Police are incompetent and individuals need to protect themselves from criminals.
2) Guns are a hobby. Who am I to impede someone's pursuit of happiness?

I'll keep his hobby in mind if he doesn't mind my hobby of building nukes in my basement.
This isn't stamp collecting you know.

[Kathianne]

Can't you argue with his point instead of his method? You like to do that. You can't argue the point so you focus in on method, a word, a phase, a list, etc... Have an argument or don't. There are a lot of people on this forum who can't seem to say anything without an insult. Usually I just tollerate it and move on; or I make my argument and mention it, and move on. Do you have an argument? Move on.

Actually, I don't, but good fallacy tactic. I do believe CH would be one of the first to say I can hold my own, sometimes to distraction. Just as he can.

[bingster]

Actually, I don't, but good fallacy tactic. I do believe CH would be one of the first to say I can hold my own, sometimes to distraction. Just as he can.

You guys went at least ten posts between you and the other guy on "ass kicking" just like you went something like twenty posts with me regarding a list I took from Violence Policy Center. You never made an argument, you just went on and on about where the list came from. This was more of the same "sometimes to distraction".

[Kathianne]

You guys went at least ten posts between you and the other guy on "ass kicking" just like you went something like twenty posts with me regarding a list I took from Violence Policy Center. You never made an argument, you just went on and on about where the list came from. This was more of the same "sometimes to distraction".

Unless there is an argument, it comes down to the point. I guess that is your point here, right?

[Robert A Whit]

you said she could not attempt to infringe on your right to own guns Robert. You are wrong, SHe has the right to say whatever she wants and she has the right to to change you rights via amendment.

The fact that she is going about it the wrong way is irrelevant to the fact that there is a right way and you didn't acknowledge that in your post.

Pull my actual original post bucky. But since the amendment says she can't infringe, you just prove that she can legally infringe.

My actual comment was so brief that you worked over time trying to spin it.

Your problem Bucky is you are so anxious to show off and prove others wrong that you won't even admit that I am only telling you what the second amendment actually does say .

[ConHog]

Pull my actual original post bucky. But since the amendment says she can't infringe, you just prove that she can legally infringe.

My actual comment was so brief that you worked over time trying to spin it.

Your problem Bucky is you are so anxious to show off and prove others wrong that you won't even admit that I am only telling you what the second amendment actually does say .

dude you seriously not understand that if she managed to pull together a new amendment that outlawed guns that would seriously infringe on your now non existent right to own guns?

and she COULD do that

Thus making your statement that she could NOT infringe on your right to own arms false as I stated it was from the beginning.

Just fucking admit you worded it wrong and move the fuck on. Jesus Christ.

[Robert A Whit]

Justice Scalia disagrees with you as I've posted before.

He told you that? By phone, mail or what? have you yet read what Acorn posted where he posted a brilliant analysis of the second amendment?


dude you seriously not understand that if she managed to pull together a new amendment that outlawed guns that would seriously infringe on your now non existent right to own guns?

and she COULD do that

Thus making your statement that she could NOT infringe on your right to own arms false as I stated it was from the beginning.

Just fucking admit you worded it wrong and move the fuck on. Jesus Christ.

Well Bucky, I note for the record that you refused to retrieve my actual post and see if it claims what you allege it claims.

Did I write that she may not attempt to collect enough votes to try to amend the second amendment?

Nope. You came up with the amendment claim.

But to make myself clear, any act she takes against that amendment means she is infronging. Do you actually think the Supreme court would stand still for her trying that?

I believe you focused only on part of my remark and went wild with your fantasies.

[ConHog]

Well Bucky, I note for the record that you refused to retrieve my actual post and see if it claims what you allege it claims.

Did I write that she may not attempt to collect enough votes to try to amend the second amendment?

Nope. You came up with the amendment claim.

But to make myself clear, any act she takes against that amendment means she is infronging. Do you actually think the Supreme court would stand still for her trying that?

I believe you focused only on part of my remark and went wild with your fantasies.

Yes, I absolutely KNOW that if she infringed your second amendment rights by getting an amendment passed that repealed the second amendment that the Supreme Court would let it happen. They would have no choice.

Just as they let the the 21st repeal the 18th.

I believe that is what they call judicial precedence on that matter. case closed. you lose, again.

[Robert A Whit]

What "arms"? Guided missles? Light anti-tank weapons? Atom bombs? Hand grenade? Of course not, right? For the same reason the 2nd amendment can be restricted to ban "assault weapons" defined however we want it to be defined.

Will you show me in the second amendment where it states that they included /excluded said weapons?

If she pulls this crap, I assure you somebody will take her ass to the Supreme Court where she will lose.


What "arms"? Guided missles? Light anti-tank weapons? Atom bombs? Hand grenade? Of course not, right? For the same reason the 2nd amendment can be restricted to ban "assault weapons" defined however we want it to be defined.


Yes, I absolutely KNOW that if she infringed your second amendment rights by getting an amendment passed that repealed the second amendment that the Supreme Court would let it happen. They would have no choice.

Just as they let the the 21st repeal the 18th.

I believe that is what they call judicial precedence on that matter. case closed. you lose, again.

Well then Bucky, fuck, why don't you explain that to her then? Maybe you will get your way and remove our rights.

I do not for a moment believe that the bitch can pull this off.

Why do you believe she can?

You know, this to you is about you winning. You will never admit to being wrong.

I don't give an eskimos ass what you believe just to set you straight.

Tell me, why do you believe she is not doing it your way?

Goddam what a board jerk.

[ConHog]

What "arms"? Guided missles? Light anti-tank weapons? Atom bombs? Hand grenade? Of course not, right? For the same reason the 2nd amendment can be restricted to ban "assault weapons" defined however we want it to be defined.

I disagree with you. There have been NUMEROUS cases before various courts where the courts have defined arms.

Here's a treatise on a few of them


http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

I think the Court would take a very dim view of any law which attempted to overturn 150 years of jurisprudence.

It could of course happen, but I doubt it.

Now that being said, those same cases recognize that the 2nd is NOT absolute and that there are situations where rights can be abridged when the need outweighs the right, but those are very limited in scope.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by ConHog http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610955#post610955)
you said she could not attempt to infringe on your right to own guns Robert. You are wrong, SHe has the right to say whatever she wants and she has the right to to change you rights via amendment.

The fact that she is going about it the wrong way is irrelevant to the fact that there is a right way and you didn't acknowledge that in your post.





Missileman comments: Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case, our rights make her wrong. Since actually violating someone's rights is illegal, I'm not sure that your argument she has the "right" to attempt it via the 1st Amendment carries much water. Attempting an illegal act is usually illegal also...think murder(attempted murder), rape(attempted rape), etc.

Thank you for understanding the actual meaning of the second amendment.

Believe me, he is trying to claim victory. That is all. He no more cares what the bitch does to this country than he cares he may not always be right.

The only reason the amendment said in clear words, it may may not be infringed is because it may not be infringed on. Even trying to amend it or kill it is infringing.

Bucky thinks that the word infringe means approve.

I don't get how he can decide that to not infringe means to infringe.

[ConHog]

Well then Bucky, fuck, why don't you explain that to her then? Maybe you will get your way and remove our rights.



I actually propose a new amendment which strengthens rights, not takes them away.




I do not for a moment believe that the bitch can pull this off.

Why do you believe she can?


I don't believe she can possibly get an amendment that takes away your right to own guns, and spelled that out SPECIFICALLY in this very thread.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610938#post610938)
technically, you are correct. It is indeed her 'right' to try and repeal the 2nd amendment, if that is her intent and if she can swing the votes in the House, Senate, get a Presidential signature and, I believe, get the 3/4's of the states to ratify it.

Not gonna happen.

To which ConHOg replied:


I agree , it won't happen. She is welcome to try. Robert was wrong in stating that she didn't have a right.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38896-Gun-supporters-please-respond-to-this&p=610945#post610945




You know, this to you is about you winning. You will never admit to being wrong.


The absolute hilarity of you saying I'm the one who is wrong here is hilarious Robert.



I don't give an eskimos ass about the truth, I just like to run my mouth.


I fixed that one for you



Tell me, why do you believe she is not doing it your way?


well duh, b/c she knows damn good and well that she would NEVER get the votes necessary to pass such an amendment , so she's trying an end around instead.


board jerk.

no need to sign your posts Robert.


BY the way, please note the red where another poster completely said that yes I'm right here.

[Missileman]

But, you did what a lot of people do. You parsed it to mean what you wanted it to mean. Taken in it's entirety, he has a legitimate point. Supreme Court judged against that point already, but he still has a point.


What "arms"? Guided missles? Light anti-tank weapons? Atom bombs? Hand grenade? Of course not, right? For the same reason the 2nd amendment can be restricted to ban "assault weapons" defined however we want it to be defined.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms that would allow service in a militia. When they start issuing U.S. soldiers only single shot rifles or shotguns, they can legally implement a ban on semi-autos with high capacity magazines. Until then, "assault weapon" ownership is protected. Period.

[ConHog]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png





Thank you for understanding the actual meaning of the second amendment.

Believe me, he is trying to claim victory. That is all. He no more cares what the bitch does to this country than he cares he may not always be right.




Robert , going through life calling women bitches simply because they disagree with you is no way to be.



The only reason the amendment said in clear words, it may may not be infringed is because it may not be infringed on. Even trying to amend it or kill it is infringing.



you're right, and even you admitted that she COULD get an amendment to repeal the second, so you dmit that she CAN infringe, which means that earlier when you said she COULD NOT infringe you were wrong.

Just as I said.

:laugh:



Bucky thinks that the word infringe means approve.

I don't get how he can decide that to not infringe means to infringe.



I never said that Robert Half Whit.


The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms that would allow service in a militia. When they start issuing U.S. soldiers only single shot rifles or shotguns, they can legally implement a ban on semi-autos with high capacity magazines. Until then, "assault weapon" ownership is protected. Period.

Did you look at the link I provided? There was case in Arkansas way back in 1845 where the Judge went a lot further than that, he defined arms pretty specifically. I would think it would be damned hard for Congress to get away with passing a law that narrowly defined arms.

[Robert A Whit]

I have come to the conclusion that Bucky does not understand the actual nature of the bill of rights.

Bucky, the Bill of rights were added for one purpose.

To protect the public FROM Government.

You seen to take the opposite view, that the Government has superior rights to the people.

Madison spoke of this in both Federalist 45 and 46. He explained that the right of the people is superior to the right of the Government. I could quote the man but in your state of mind, no doubt you think the government can fuck us any which way it chooses.

Madison commented that the powers of the Feds are limited and few. That states have many more rights. But the ultimate right is with the people.

Can we the people eliminate the second amendment?

Sure.

But that bitch Feinstein lacks the authority. She is government and worse than that, the federal government.

Madison would spin in his grave were he to witness the crap you spew.

I personally believe she is constrained by the words of the second amendment. Let her try to pass over the rights of the people.

I dare her.

[Missileman]

I actually propose a new amendment which strengthens rights, not takes them away.



I don't believe she can possibly get an amendment that takes away your right to own guns, and spelled that out SPECIFICALLY in this very thread.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610938#post610938)
technically, you are correct. It is indeed her 'right' to try and repeal the 2nd amendment, if that is her intent and if she can swing the votes in the House, Senate, get a Presidential signature and, I believe, get the 3/4's of the states to ratify it.

Not gonna happen.

To which ConHOg replied:


I agree , it won't happen. She is welcome to try. Robert was wrong in stating that she didn't have a right.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38896-Gun-supporters-please-respond-to-this&p=610945#post610945



The absolute hilarity of you saying I'm the one who is wrong here is hilarious Robert.


I fixed that one for you


well duh, b/c she knows damn good and well that she would NEVER get the votes necessary to pass such an amendment , so she's trying an end around instead.


no need to sign your posts Robert.


BY the way, please note the red where another poster completely said that yes I'm right here.

She's not trying to repeal the 2nd, she's trying to enact legislation that we both agree is unconstitutional.

[ConHog]

you suck at this game Robert, you truly do :laugh:


I have come to the conclusion that Bucky does not understand the actual nature of the bill of rights.

Bucky, the Bill of rights were added for one purpose.

To protect the public FROM Government.

You seen to take the opposite view, that the Government has superior rights to the people.


can you provide ANY evidence to support this claim?



Madison spoke of this in both Federalist 45 and 46. He explained that the right of the people is superior to the right of the Government. I could quote the man but in your state of mind, no doubt you think the government can fuck us any which way it chooses.


My state of mind?



Madison commented that the powers of the Feds are limited and few. That states have many more rights. But the ultimate right is with the people.


I could certainly make a case that the states do not have more rights than the federal government, but that is another topic. If you would like to have your ass beat on that subject as well, go ahead and start a thread.



Can we the people eliminate the second amendment?

Sure.

glad you agree. now stop whining that your right can't be infringed. It can , just not by a law passed by Congress.



But that bitch Feinstein lacks the authority. She is government and worse than that, the federal government.

three points here Robert

1. Once again, a woman is not a bitch for disagreeing with you.
2. A politicians doesn't stop being a member of we the people just because they are politicans
3. It is IMPOSSIBLE to amend the COTUS without government.


Madison would spin in his grave were he to witness the crap you spew.


Actually Madison would agree with me that you are a half whit and are arguing in circles.



I personally believe she is constrained by the words of the second amendment. Let her try to pass over the rights of the people.

I dare her.

what you believe is not even the least bit relevant. FACTS are relevant. and the FACTS are that one amendment can absolutely nullify another even if the nullified amendment protected a right and that right is removed by the nullifier.

if your right is removed it is infringed. The second does not say your right can't be infringed, it says CONGRESS can't pass a law that infringes, it says NOTHING about a Constitutional Convention.


She's not trying to repeal the 2nd, she's trying to enact legislation that we both agree is unconstitutional.

absolutely agree . I'm just in this trying to point out to Robert that his statement that his right can't be infringed PERIOD is absolutely wrong.

Hell, he's even admitted it and then denied it in the same post LOL

[Missileman]

Did you look at the link I provided? There was case in Arkansas way back in 1845 where the Judge went a lot further than that, he defined arms pretty specifically. I would think it would be damned hard for Congress to get away with passing a law that narrowly defined arms.

There are a couple problems for congress...handguns are the weapon of choice for self/home defense and you can't legally deny someone the right to self defense, and then there's the good ol' defense of state/country angle that the courts have ruled for that makes military style weapons uninfringible. I think you can make a rational, legal argument that your average Joe has no need for a full-auto, but I think that's about as far as a gun restriction can go.

I'm not sure why the previous assault weapons ban was never challenged in court, but the mood of the country seems different now and a new ban will be challenged before the ink is dry, IMO.

[ConHog]

There are a couple problems for congress...handguns are the weapon of choice for self/home defense and you can't legally deny someone the right to self defense, and then there's the good ol' defense of state/country angle that the courts have ruled for that makes military style weapons uninfringible. I think you can make a rational, legal argument that your average Joe has no need for a full-auto, but I think that's about as far as a gun restriction can go.

I'm not sure why the previous assault weapons ban was never challenged in court, but the mood of the country seems different now and a new ban will be challenged before the ink is dry, IMO.

see, i even go further than that. I believe the government ought have to prove we can't own automatic weapons on an individual basis. I don't believe the 2nd allows for ANY restrictions, and certainly the early courts agreed with me . Hell after the Civil War there were Gatling guns in private ownership.

but somehow I'm a gun grabber LOL

Oh, and actually you can own a fully automatic weapon, it's just a pain in the ass and they have to be pre 1986.

[Robert A Whit]

Read this damned lie the man told.


Conhog lies: I'm just in this trying to point out to Robert that his statement that his right can't be infringed PERIOD is absolutely wrong.

Hell, he's even admitted it and then denied it in the same post LOL

Why don't you have the gonads to stand up FOR the people, FOR the Bill of Rights and lastly for we the people?

You are on some sort of fucking mind trip for what reason I have no idea.

And when I call Feinstein a bitch, that is none of your business. She represents my state.

[jafar00]

We give TONS of money AND military weapons and such to Egypt - ever year - as part of the Israel/Egypt peace treaty. I'm just pointing out that tons of weapons are given to all 3 places.

Yes, to the regime, not to the people.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/ca012313dBP20130122114531.jpg

[Nukeman]

Yes, to the regime, not to the people.REALLY Jafar what do you want us to do?? Drop a few billion out the back of an air plane?? Who the hell do you think we should deal with, Should we spend more money of YOUR country to set up support there and distribution centers. NOPE.. That is the domain of YOUR country not ours, hell if it was up to me I would stop ALL foreign aid to any country that showed us the slightest provocation, I would also pull all military support unless specificly asked for and spelled out what they are to do, that way you and your bretheren coudl quit with telling us we are "invading" or usurping your countries.... Fuck you people are NEVER happy!!!!!!!!!!!

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yes, I absolutely KNOW that if she infringed your second amendment rights by getting an amendment passed that repealed the second amendment that the Supreme Court would let it happen. They would have no choice.

Just as they let the the 21st repeal the 18th.

I believe that is what they call judicial precedence on that matter. case closed. you lose, again.

Again, you are technically correct.

What some do not appear to understand, is that one amendment granting or recognizing a particular 'right', can and has been altered by another amendment (as long as the process is followed). You cannot just declare something officially unconstitutional until the process has been completed, including court challenges.

[mundame]

What "arms"? Guided missles? Light anti-tank weapons? Atom bombs? Hand grenade? Of course not, right? For the same reason the 2nd amendment can be restricted to ban "assault weapons" defined however we want it to be defined.



That's the whole argument, right there. The side that wants to block these assault weapons designed only to kill masses of people at once could do so in a minute if they had the votes. It doesn't need arguing: we've already done this exact thing once before and the same bannings of other bad military weapons often before. I don't think they have the votes, but it's good to start the fight, because obviously these killings will go on and on and on and more and more frequently now. The psychos are competing. So when someone sets a record by killing out an entire primary school with AR-15s, maybe finally they'll pass the law to ban them, again.


Justice Scalia disagrees with you as I've posted before.

I wish I had seen that post; I am very interested in what Justice Scalia has to say about all this. He has already says he believes the constitutional protection is limited to single, walking soldier equipment -- which was quite an interesting point.




Can't you argue with his point instead of his method? You like to do that. You can't argue the point so you focus in on method, a word, a phase, a list, etc... Have an argument or don't. There are a lot of people on this forum who can't seem to say anything without an insult. Usually I just tollerate it and move on; or I make my argument and mention it, and move on. Do you have an argument? Move on.

Suggestion: don't tolerate it. These are cretins. They'll continue to do it as long as you tolerate it.




I'll keep his hobby in mind if he doesn't mind my hobby of building nukes in my basement.
This isn't stamp collecting you know.

There are lots of problematic hobbies. Raising bulls as pets (people do that around here, have for the whole time I've been here, and one of the bulls ALWAYS kills them in the end. It's an absolute staple of the county paper.), giant sculptures of tires and metal 30 feet tall built along the highway that threaten to fall over and are ugly, dive-bombing cars on highways by accident with your out-of-control drone planes, etc.

Calling something a hobby doesn't help the argument. It's not usually the "hobbyist" (not that I believe that hobby talk for a moment: I know you all are arming for the Revolution!) who shoots up the school: it's his son, who kills his family first and then shoots up the school, or it's a friend of the son who notices all the weapons standing by the doors and breaks in to steal them.

No, they have to be banned. It might take another couple bad school shootings, however. Maybe even a Republican administration. Bush got all kinds of gun bans passed and nobody cared when he did it.


The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms that would allow service in a militia. When they start issuing U.S. soldiers only single shot rifles or shotguns, they can legally implement a ban on semi-autos with high capacity magazines. Until then, "assault weapon" ownership is protected. Period.


Grenades, grenades, grenades, grenades.

So what about them? Grenades are illegal for private citizens.

Also full-automatic assault rifles are the norm for soldiers, right?

So why aren't they legal for private citizens. Because they sure aren't.

Your argument is no good; lots of soldier equipment has long been illegal, and you all haven't been protesting, rebelling, revolting, etc. for all of that. So you have no good argument for not including the assault weapons all the crazies use to mow down children and shoppers.



And when I call Feinstein a bitch, that is none of your business. She represents my state.



So....you get to call a woman a bitch if she represents your state in Congress?

That's such a unique idea I think you should get away with it. ;)

[Missileman]

That's the whole argument, right there. The side that wants to block these assault weapons designed only to kill masses of people at once could do so in a minute if they had the votes. It doesn't need arguing: we've already done this exact thing once before and the same bannings of other bad military weapons often before. I don't think they have the votes, but it's good to start the fight, because obviously these killings will go on and on and on and more and more frequently now. The psychos are competing. So when someone sets a record by killing out an entire primary school with AR-15s, maybe finally they'll pass the law to ban them, again.



I wish I had seen that post; I am very interested in what Justice Scalia has to say about all this. He has already says he believes the constitutional protection is limited to single, walking soldier equipment -- which was quite an interesting point.

The bolded part destroys the BS argument in the first paragraph.



There are lots of problematic hobbies. Raising bulls as pets (people do that around here, have for the whole time I've been here, and one of the bulls ALWAYS kills them in the end. It's an absolute staple of the county paper.), giant sculptures of tires and metal 30 feet tall built along the highway that threaten to fall over and are ugly, dive-bombing cars on highways by accident with your out-of-control drone planes, etc.

Calling something a hobby doesn't help the argument. It's not usually the "hobbyist" (not that I believe that hobby talk for a moment: I know you all are arming for the Revolution!) who shoots up the school: it's his son, who kills his family first and then shoots up the school, or it's a friend of the son who notices all the weapons standing by the doors and breaks in to steal them.

No, they have to be banned. It might take another couple bad school shootings, however. Maybe even a Republican administration. Bush got all kinds of gun bans passed and nobody cared when he did it.

Bush signed a bunch of gun bans? If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, might I suggest you do a little fact checking BEFORE posting.

[mundame]

The bolded part destroys the BS argument in the first paragraph.



I don't think so --- I believe you are saying that since I argue that many weapons bans are already long in place, but that Scalia says walking single soldier weaponry is protected by the Second, that it IS arguable by the Supreme Court that an assault weapon ban might be illegal. And aaaaaallllllll the other weapons of mass destruction.


However, I don't think so because where are all these Supreme Court strike-downs? Why didn't they already strike down the bans on grenades and full-automatics and sawed-off shotguns?

No, I think Scalia is gearing up to decide against you. These massacres really are a public order problem. Scalia has been no friend to weapons of mass destruction over the years, or you could clip grenades to your belt to go grocery shopping right now.

[Missileman]

Grenades, grenades, grenades, grenades.

So what about them? Grenades are illegal for private citizens.

Also full-automatic assault rifles are the norm for soldiers, right?

So why aren't they legal for private citizens. Because they sure aren't.

Your argument is no good; lots of soldier equipment has long been illegal, and you all haven't been protesting, rebelling, revolting, etc. for all of that. So you have no good argument for not including the assault weapons all the crazies use to mow down children and shoppers.

I don't think so --- I believe you are saying that since I argue that many weapons bans are already long in place, but that Scalia says walking single soldier weaponry is protected by the Second, that it IS arguable by the Supreme Court that an assault weapon ban might be illegal. And aaaaaallllllll the other weapons of mass destruction.


However, I don't think so because where are all these Supreme Court strike-downs? Why didn't they already strike down the bans on grenades and full-automatics and sawed-off shotguns?

No, I think Scalia is gearing up to decide against you. These massacres really are a public order problem. Scalia has been no friend to weapons of mass destruction over the years, or you could clip grenades to your belt to go grocery shopping right now.

Grenades, missiles, nukes, aircraft carriers, tanks, bazookas, etc are not the basic walking soldier's weapon...a rifle is. You don't have to have a full auto weapons to adequately function as a soldier, semi-auto with high capacity magazines are sufficient.

Since more people are killed with clubs than assault rifles, it is you left holding the "no good argument" bag.

[mundame]

Grenades, missiles, nukes, aircraft carriers, tanks, bazookas, etc are not the basic walking soldier's weapon...a rifle is. You don't have to have a full auto weapons to adequately function as a soldier, semi-auto with high capacity magazines are sufficient.

Since more people are killed with clubs than assault rifles, it is you left holding the "no good argument" bag.


The Afghans are armed with clubs, certainly, but our soldiers are armed with full automatics and grenades, as you well know.

So how come you don't get to carry all that around to church and when you drop off your kid to first grade?

Because they banned these weapons and you'll get arrested, surrounded by a SWAT team if you try it!

The more I see you all arguing for the legality of what you haven't ever been allowed to carry, and what was already banned for ten years with NO SUPREME COURT complaint against that ban, the more I realize this is a done deal.

We just have to wait for another couple primary schools to get shot up and then they'll pass the assault weapon ban again, and high time, too.

[tailfins]

So....you get to call a woman a bitch if she represents your state in Congress?

That's such a unique idea I think you should get away with it. ;)

Since she doesn't represent my state, I will just call her a crook. Is that better?

[darin]

The Afghans are armed with clubs, certainly, but our soldiers are armed with full automatics and grenades, as you well know.

So how come you don't get to carry all that around to church and when you drop off your kid to first grade?

Because they banned these weapons and you'll get arrested, surrounded by a SWAT team if you try it!

The more I see you all arguing for the legality of what you haven't ever been allowed to carry, and what was already banned for ten years with NO SUPREME COURT complaint against that ban, the more I realize this is a done deal.

We just have to wait for another couple primary schools to get shot up and then they'll pass the assault weapon ban again, and high time, too.



Our Soldiers are mostly-armed with semi-auto rifles (see: M4/M16 varients). We have Fully-Auto weapons to use for suppressive fire (M249, etc) and for attacking vehicles and structures (see: M2, etc).

But here's the point you are missing.

You are a walking, talking, posting LOGICAL FALLACY.

Please, to stop from looking foolish, PROOF your posts to see if your arguments first constitute a fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[Missileman]

The Afghans are armed with clubs, certainly, but our soldiers are armed with full automatics and grenades, as you well know.


I'm talking about right here in the USA...more people are killed with clubs than are killed with assault weapons, yet you demand a ban on assault weapons. You never did answer my question from way back...what are you going to ban when some enterprising psycho kills a bunch of people with a few glass bottles filled with gasoline?

As for predicting the future of gun rights in the USA, you couldn't determine the direction of that wind if your ass were an anemometer. The 1994 assault weapons ban survived 10 years because no one challenged it in court...let one get signed today.

[Marcus Aurelius]

you couldn't determine the direction of that wind if your ass were an anemometer.

No one could. That only measures wind 'speed'.

Just sayin...

[Missileman]

No one could. That only measures wind 'speed'.

Just sayin...

/sigh

Definition of ANEMOMETER : an instrument for measuring and indicating the force or speed and sometimes direction of the wind

[mundame]

I'm talking about right here in the USA...more people are killed with clubs than are killed with assault weapons, yet you demand a ban on assault weapons. You never did answer my question from way back...what are you going to ban when some enterprising psycho kills a bunch of people with a few glass bottles filled with gasoline?

Molotov cocktails.... sure, that's a potential problem and there is more of that than you may know about. A book on this stuff I was reading said the very first such killing was a disgruntled school board member (who does that remind me of here? Think, think....) who loaded dynamite into a new school he disapproved of, set it off, killed 40 small kids. That was... I'm thinking 1911. Flip to now, the kid who killed seven at that Korean College in California in April used a semi-automatic 45, so there you are. Until lately, ALL of the mass killings were "regular" weapons or weird stuff. Even the Columbine kids set a gazumpteen propane bombs, large tanks and small --- they didn't test any of them, so only some small CO2 ones went off.

But since Columbine, nearly all the mass murderers have been using AR-15s. They DO compete: they read compulsively about other killers, serial and mass, and they compete. This is known. So now they use AR-15s, most of them, and they use the high-capacity magazines. it's a public order problem. Well, it's more than that, it's a mass death problem.



As for predicting the future of gun rights in the USA, you couldn't determine the direction of that wind if your ass were an anemometer. The 1994 assault weapons ban survived 10 years because no one challenged it in court...let one get signed today.

Now, now, dear, don't be crude. Yes, I've followed all this carefully and I see that you all have no argument whatsoever and the Supreme Court is against you. How do I know? Because they've let stand AAALLLLLLL the other bans you say are so very illegal, but you are clearly dead wrong since the Supreme Court doesn't think so (and they say what is legal and what isn't), and since the Court didn't interfere in the last ten-year ban of these assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

So the gun guys are dead in the water and it's just a matter of time and a few more school shootings. One might do it, if it's a big kill. Feinstein is just getting the mechanism geared up and waiting for the shooters to do their thing. It's the shooters who will get the law passed. Already 75% of Americans are polled to want these mass-kill weapons banned. How long can Congress oppose that if there are more and more school and mall and movie theater shootings? And there will be ----- soon.


/sigh

Definition of ANEMOMETER

: an instrument for measuring and indicating the force or speed and sometimes direction of the wind


I did wonder............ http://deephousepage.com/smilies/conf40.gif


http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif

[Abbey Marie]

Gabby

As far as the country being set up to favor the privileged land owning white males. Yes it was. Was it perfect by no means. But they utilized language and prinicals that lifted the system beyond those narrow boundaries. Was the Athenian democracy perfect , um heck no. Majority rule is not ideal by any stretch.
the American Constitution was set up as something different and acknowledges MORE human rights and liberty than most (if not ANY) western gov'ts ever did. If your trying to make a case for anarchy or hard libertarianism that's fine. your right there was a bit of the elitist bent to the U.S. constitution as well, Some of that is pointed out vividly by the Anti-federalist papers. But it's Still far and away better than any other form of large gov't i've seen.
As Churchill said
"...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

concerning the 2nd amendment
Tyr or maybe it was RSR over in another post Quoted some the framer's understandings of arms were about.
here are a few more.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…"
-- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, printed in "Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts", at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

All due respect Gab and Jafar
and the writer from New Zealand but your interpretations are off.

here are more quotes from the framers and other of that time.

...............

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. "
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


"...When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... "
---George Mason Quote from the Virginia convention:

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "
******** ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.


please respond to that.


:clap:

[Missileman]

Molotov cocktails.... sure, that's a potential problem and there is more of that than you may know about. A book on this stuff I was reading said the very first such killing was a disgruntled school board member (who does that remind me of here? Think, think....) who loaded dynamite into a new school he disapproved of, set it off, killed 40 small kids. That was... I'm thinking 1911. Flip to now, the kid who killed seven at that Korean College in California in April used a semi-automatic 45, so there you are. Until lately, ALL of the mass killings were "regular" weapons or weird stuff. Even the Columbine kids set a gazumpteen propane bombs, large tanks and small --- they didn't test any of them, so only some small CO2 ones went off.

But since Columbine, nearly all the mass murderers have been using AR-15s. They DO compete: they read compulsively about other killers, serial and mass, and they compete. This is known. So now they use AR-15s, most of them, and they use the high-capacity magazines. it's a public order problem. Well, it's more than that, it's a mass death problem.




Now, now, dear, don't be crude. Yes, I've followed all this carefully and I see that you all have no argument whatsoever and the Supreme Court is against you. How do I know? Because they've let stand AAALLLLLLL the other bans you say are so very illegal, but you are clearly dead wrong since the Supreme Court doesn't think so (and they say what is legal and what isn't), and since the Court didn't interfere in the last ten-year ban of these assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

So the gun guys are dead in the water and it's just a matter of time and a few more school shootings. One might do it, if it's a big kill. Feinstein is just getting the mechanism geared up and waiting for the shooters to do their thing. It's the shooters who will get the law passed. Already 75% of Americans are polled to want these mass-kill weapons banned. How long can Congress oppose that if there are more and more school and mall and movie theater shootings? And there will be ----- soon.

Did you miss the part about the 1994 ban NOT being challenged in court? And how many times do you have to be shown the actual SC rulings on gun cases before it sinks in that SC is against YOU.

[mundame]

Did you miss the part about the 1994 ban NOT being challenged in court? And how many times do you have to be shown the actual SC rulings on gun cases before it sinks in that SC is against YOU.


Of course the Supreme Court is not against me: if they were against me, Lanza would have been throwing grenades.

Why do you suppose they didn't bother to challenge the 1994 ban? Because they'd have lost, lost, lost.

Yeah, I am satisfied: the shooters will shoot some more kids with AR-15s equipped with huge high-capacity magazines, Congress will be driven kicking and screaming into a ban (or easily, overnight, depending on how many the shooters shoot at once and how tiny the kids are) and then the Supreme Court will leave it alone just as they've allowed bans on grenades and rocket launchers and submachine guns.

It wouldn't surprise me if we have a ban before the end of 2013, given the rate these crazies are doing their thing: the frequency and kill rates are only going to increase, given the strong trend line, after all.

If the rate of mass murder DOES decrease, I would expect a ban as soon as the administrations change. It would be a lot easier for a Republican president to get a ban. Nixon goes to China, all that.

[Missileman]

Of course the Supreme Court is not against me: if they were against me, Lanza would have been throwing grenades.

Why do you suppose they didn't bother to challenge the 1994 ban? Because they'd have lost, lost, lost.

Yeah, I am satisfied: the shooters will shoot some more kids with AR-15s equipped with huge high-capacity magazines, Congress will be driven kicking and screaming into a ban (or easily, overnight, depending on how many the shooters shoot at once and how tiny the kids are) and then the Supreme Court will leave it alone just as they've allowed bans on grenades and rocket launchers and submachine guns.

It wouldn't surprise me if we have a ban before the end of 2013, given the rate these crazies are doing their thing: the frequency and kill rates are only going to increase, given the strong trend line, after all.

If the rate of mass murder DOES decrease, I would expect a ban as soon as the administrations change. It would be a lot easier for a Republican president to get a ban. Nixon goes to China, all that.

The 1994 ban wasn't challenged because it didn't really ban assault weapons or high capacity magazines, it mainly banned future manufacture of same. All assault weapons and high capacity magazines in existence at the effective date of the legislation were grandfathered and deemed legal.


Molotov cocktails.... sure, that's a potential problem and there is more of that than you may know about. A book on this stuff I was reading said the very first such killing was a disgruntled school board member (who does that remind me of here? Think, think....) who loaded dynamite into a new school he disapproved of, set it off, killed 40 small kids. That was... I'm thinking 1911. Flip to now, the kid who killed seven at that Korean College in California in April used a semi-automatic 45, so there you are. Until lately, ALL of the mass killings were "regular" weapons or weird stuff. Even the Columbine kids set a gazumpteen propane bombs, large tanks and small --- they didn't test any of them, so only some small CO2 ones went off.

But since Columbine, nearly all the mass murderers have been using AR-15s. They DO compete: they read compulsively about other killers, serial and mass, and they compete. This is known. So now they use AR-15s, most of them, and they use the high-capacity magazines. it's a public order problem. Well, it's more than that, it's a mass death problem.


You didn't answer my question...what do we ban to prevent future molotov cocktail attacks should they become a preferred method of mass killing?

[mundame]

You didn't answer my question...what do we ban to prevent future molotov cocktail attacks should they become a preferred method of mass killing?

I'll let you work on the hypotheticals.

I'm mainly interested in getting a ban on the weaponry they are pretty much all using right now. Real blood, real splattered brain tissue --- not hypothetical.


The 1994 ban wasn't challenged because it didn't really ban assault weapons or high capacity magazines, it mainly banned future manufacture of same. All assault weapons and high capacity magazines in existence at the effective date of the legislation were grandfathered and deemed legal.

Interesting, thanks.

This implies they ruled out a house-to-house confiscation search.

Probably wise, even then........

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=611070#post611070)

No one could. That only measures wind 'speed'.

Just sayin...


/sigh

Definition of ANEMOMETER

: an instrument for measuring and indicating the force or speed and sometimes direction of the wind

BIGGER SIGH...


GOOGLE search on DEFINE ANEMOMETER...

an·e·mom·e·ter/ˌanəˈmämitər/

<tbody>
Noun

<tbody>
An instrument for measuring the speed of the wind, or of any current of gas.

</tbody>







Synonyms

<tbody>
wind gauge

</tbody>



</tbody>



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anemometer

an·e·mom·e·ter [an-uh-mom-i-ter] Show IPA

noun Meteorology . any instrument for measuring the speed of wind.





http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anemometer

an·e·mom·e·ter (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-mhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifmhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr)n. An instrument for measuring wind force and velocity.






http://www.ambientweather.com/anemometer.html

An anemometer is a device for measuring wind speed, and is one instrument used in a weather station. The term is derived from the Greek word, anemos, meaning wind.

An anemometer can also be loosely defined as a device that measures both windspeed and wind direction (wind vane).

In other words... NEENER NEENER NEENER... I am 'more' right than you are. :poke:

[jimnyc]

Justice Scalia disagrees with you as I've posted before.

Only per YOUR interpretation of what he meant. Do you have followup words/interview to clarify? Because all I got out of what you posted is that it might be possible to ban weapons like rocket launcher and perhaps military grade weapons. And even that is guessing as he was purposely vague.

[ConHog]

The 1994 ban wasn't challenged because it didn't really ban assault weapons or high capacity magazines, it mainly banned future manufacture of same. All assault weapons and high capacity magazines in existence at the effective date of the legislation were grandfathered and deemed legal.

yep, completely mis titled law right there. And the gun grabbers bought it LOL


You didn't answer my question...what do we ban to prevent future molotov cocktail attacks should they become a preferred method of mass killing?

duh, we ban lighters.


:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Yes, to the regime, not to the people.

Never said otherwise. My point was, our government is supplying people and governments, with weapons that they want to ban on our soil. And in some of the instances, they are doing in a manner so that the people can protect themselves from a tyrannical government turning the military against the people.

[Missileman]

I'll let you work on the hypotheticals.

I'm mainly interested in getting a ban on the weaponry they are pretty much all using right now. Real blood, real splattered brain tissue --- not hypothetical.

More people killed with clubs than assault weapons...where's your call to ban baseball bats? Real blood, real smashed skulls --- not really a problem???

It makes you look like all you really care about is gun grabbing.

[mundame]

It makes you look like all you really care about is gun grabbing.


No, indeed, no gun-grabbing, particularly not that cute little short-barrelled revolver under my bed.

I just want to grab the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

I'll even let you keep your Louisville Slugger.

[Missileman]

duh, we ban lighters.


:laugh2:

I figure she'll argue we have to ban windows...someone might glue flat pieces of glass together to fashion a "home-made" weapon of mass killing. :laugh:


No, indeed, no gun-grabbing, particularly not that cute little short-barrelled revolver under my bed.

I just want to grab the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

I'll even let you keep your Louisville Slugger.

What a hypocrite.

[jimnyc]

"No need to ban what kills more people - it's all about controlling the scary weapons".

If people were TRULY trying to prevent death and save lives, they would work on what kills most and work their way down. Just like the USA spends billions on Cancer and heart related issues and then works down to cuts and bruises. You'll notice, the people wanting to save lives and such, have no issue with some of the larger things that people murder with - only guns.

Weird.

[mundame]

I figure she'll argue we have to ban windows...someone might glue flat pieces of glass together to fashion a "home-made" weapon of mass killing. :laugh:


Probably will, too. As things are going.

Why are you saying I'll argue for people killing with this, that, and the kitchen sink? These are your arguments for alternative weapons, never mine.

I'm interested in banning two things, as I may possibly have mentioned: assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Seriously, you should move on. Nothing could be clearer than my argument.

Suggestion for a direction for moving on: suppose they ban assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Should they confiscate them? How about whenever people try to sell any? (I was interested in your 1994 point, that the Court ruled out confiscation then.) The problem currently is that these weapons are mostly being STOLEN by schizophrenic teens, often the sons of the gun owner. So what about getting them entirely out of the hands of the public?


What a hypocrite.

Back up your name-calling, if you can: I don't see how you possible can.

I don't personally own either an assault weapon or a high-capacity magazine. And I certainly wouldn't: I'm not planning on shooting up a shopping mall!! I'm rather a good shot with some other stuff I won't detail, stuff that belongs on a farm.

I don't want all guns taken away, and I own some of the more useful ones, and use them. And NO ONE is suggesting doing that, for heaven's sake.

You can even keep your Louisville Slugger for all of me, as long as you don't use it to bash anyone's brains in: you seem to be surprisingly interested in people doing that, it's getting a little worrying.

[ConHog]

"No need to ban what kills more people - it's all about controlling the scary weapons".

If people were TRULY trying to prevent death and save lives, they would work on what kills most and work their way down. Just like the USA spends billions on Cancer and heart related issues and then works down to cuts and bruises. You'll notice, the people wanting to save lives and such, have no issue with some of the larger things that people murder with - only guns.

Weird.

to be fair though, people aren't randomly walking into schools and clubbing little kids to death, or cutting them down with swords.

By volume perhaps guns aren't the most used weapon to kill people in this country, but that isn't what people who want to ban these guns are saying. They are mainly concerned about random incidents that ARE being committed with guns.

I agree with them they say that if not for these type guns most of these incidents would not occur. I disagree with them when they say that because some people use guns to commit mass murder , no one should be allowed to use such guns.

[jimnyc]

to be fair though, people aren't randomly walking into schools and clubbing little kids to death, or cutting them down with swords.

By volume perhaps guns aren't the most used weapon to kill people in this country, but that isn't what people who want to ban these guns are saying. They are mainly concerned about random incidents that ARE being committed with guns.

I agree with them they say that if not for these type guns most of these incidents would not occur. I disagree with them when they say that because some people use guns to commit mass murder , no one should be allowed to use such guns.

Of course we want to prevent children deaths - but don't we want to prevent ALL deaths? With all due respect to the children - is one of their lives more valuable than a teenager killed with a baseball bat down the road?

[DragonStryk72]

I am presenting this letter to the editor from a New Zealand newspaper concerning the Second Amendment without comment:



http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8217690/US-second-amendment-deters-tyranny

"The right of he people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice that the manner of writing states that we already have the right, and that the government is the one being held back by the amendment. Truthfully, its even more important these days that we hold to the amendment. It is not, however, the turrany of government we must guard against. There gangs, criminals abound, and lest we forget, the occasional insanemass murderer. Without firearms, we have no defense against the unscrupulous.


to be fair though, people aren't randomly walking into schools and clubbing little kids to death, or cutting them down with swords.

By volume perhaps guns aren't the most used weapon to kill people in this country, but that isn't what people who want to ban these guns are saying. They are mainly concerned about random incidents that ARE being committed with guns.

I agree with them they say that if not for these type guns most of these incidents would not occur. I disagree with them when they say that because some people use guns to commit mass murder , no one should be allowed to use such guns.

Incorrect. Look up all the recent mass stabbings, some with numbers equivalent to sandy hook. Then consider that all those kinds of shootings occur in gun-free zones, where the killer knows that he will be the only one armed.

[Missileman]

Back up your name-calling, if you can: I don't see how you possible can.

I don't personally own either an assault weapon or a high-capacity magazine. And I certainly wouldn't: I'm not planning on shooting up a shopping mall!! I'm rather a good shot with some other stuff I won't detail, stuff that belongs on a farm.

I don't want all guns taken away, and I own some of the more useful ones, and use them. And NO ONE is suggesting doing that, for heaven's sake.

You can even keep your Louisville Slugger for all of me, as long as you don't use it to bash anyone's brains in: you seem to be surprisingly interested in people doing that, it's getting a little worrying.

It's always the same with liberals. "Take their money, leave mine alone"..."take their guns, leave mine alone". There are thousands more people killed annually with handguns than assault weapons...THOUSANDS MORE. Collectively, handguns are more deadly than assault weapons.

[mundame]

Incorrect. Look up all the recent mass stabbings, some with numbers equivalent to sandy hook. Then consider that all those kinds of shootings occur in gun-free zones, where the killer knows that he will be the only one armed.


The death toll at Sandy Hook was 27. Please back up your claim that there have been plural mass stabbings that equal that death toll.

I don't believe you can do it. I'll be checking your references.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The death toll at Sandy Hook was 27. Please back up your claim that there have been plural mass stabbings that equal that death toll.

I don't believe you can do it. I'll be checking your references.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/14/Man-stabs-22-children-at-China-primary-school
Man Stabs 22 Children at China Primary School


So it was in China. Same principle.



BTW, just for good measure...



http://radioviceonline.com/law-abiding-citizen-with-gun-stops-mass-stabbing-attack-in-utah/

Law-abiding citizen with gun stops mass stabbing attack in Utah


A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store.


Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith’s employee Dorothy Espinoza says, “He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people.”


Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. “There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms.”


Then, before the suspect could find another victim – a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. “A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith’s grabbed him.”

[ConHog]

It's always the same with liberals. "Take their rights , leave mine alone"..."take their right to gay marriage, leave my rights alone".

I fixed that for you.

No charge.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:


no attemt to deflect this into a gay marraige thread, just pointing out that a lot of fucking people need to start minding their own fucking business.

[tailfins]

"No need to ban what kills more people - it's all about controlling the scary weapons".

If people were TRULY trying to prevent death and save lives, they would work on what kills most and work their way down. Just like the USA spends billions on Cancer and heart related issues and then works down to cuts and bruises. You'll notice, the people wanting to save lives and such, have no issue with some of the larger things that people murder with - only guns.

Weird.

Exactly! Unless you want to take the position that some lives are worth more than others, an actuarial approach to reducing death in this country must be taken. In the case of a liberal, a life that furthers their agenda is worth more than a life that doesn't.

[ConHog]

Exactly! Unless you want to take the position that some lives are worth more than others, an actuarial approach to reducing death must be taken.

LOL it still makes me laugh that you want to approach this like it's book keeping. It's not, It will be an emotional topic no matter what.

Myself I prefer to look at the suicide aspect of it, why are these kids doing it, the weapon of their choice is secondary except for the fact that no one can deny that the weapon of choice (a gun) leads to more victims than say a knife would.

I believe that EVERYONE who tries to blame ANY inanimate object is looking at the wrong issue.

IOW looking to help victims or future victims is the wrong focus, or well actually that's not correct either because in a sense the perpetrators are victims themselves.


gun, knife, poison, hanging, baseball bat, meat cleaver, whatever I think we should be concentrating on the why rather than the how; but to deny that some of these weapons used allow the perpetrators to claim more victims than they would be able to with other weapons is laughable.

[DragonStryk72]

The death toll at Sandy Hook was 27. Please back up your claim that there have been plural mass stabbings that equal that death toll.

I don't believe you can do it. I'll be checking your references.

Dang, Marcus beat me to it. Oh well, point still holds.

As well, most mass murders that do use guns, use semiautomatic fire, even if they are equipped with a weapon that has the capacity for full automatic. So unless you care to prove otherwise, every one of these incidences could easily have been pulled of with a cop-issue Beretta. With no one else armed, its not exactly difficult to rack up a body count.

[Missileman]

gun, knife, poison, hanging, baseball bat, meat cleaver, whatever I think we should be concentrating on the why rather than the how; but to deny that some of these weapons used allow the perpetrators to claim more victims than they would be able to with other weapons is laughable.

Equally as laughable is ignoring the fact that a double barrel shotgun and a bag of shells could have claimed the same number of victims at Sandy Hook. Even more laughable is denying that disarming law-abiding citizens won't have any effect on gun crime.

[ConHog]

Dang, Marcus beat me to it. Oh well, point still holds.

As well, most mass murders that do use guns, use semiautomatic fire, even if they are equipped with a weapon that has the capacity for full automatic. So unless you care to prove otherwise, every one of these incidences could easily have been pulled of with a cop-issue Beretta. With no one else armed, its not exactly difficult to rack up a body count.

This is truly the only part that confuses me about their stance. I can understand their natural tendancy to want to get guns that are causing deaths, but sheesh they aren't even targeting the right guns.

how hard is to understand that an AR15 is nothing more than a beefed up and plastic clad .22 semi automatic hunting rifle and is actually incapable of doing any more damage than as you say a regular old semi automatic pistol.

[revelarts]

http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q426/mermaid32760/GunProblem_zpsb7db7db5.jpg

[red states rule]

http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q426/mermaid32760/GunProblem_zpsb7db7db5.jpg

Rev I have asked the anti gun nuts like Mundame and Gabby to please tell me what law if passed would have stopped the killings at Sandy Hook. The truth is no law would have stopped it. The punk stole his mom's guns so the background check would not have worked. Bottom line is you cannot pass a law that an evil bastard like him would have obeyed.

[jafar00]

"The right of he people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice that the manner of writing states that we already have the right, and that the government is the one being held back by the amendment. Truthfully, its even more important these days that we hold to the amendment. It is not, however, the turrany of government we must guard against. There gangs, criminals abound, and lest we forget, the occasional insanemass murderer. Without firearms, we have no defense against the unscrupulous.

The 2nd amendment was never about people arming themselves against criminals who also armed themselves. It was never about setting society up for wild west shootouts. It was never about the lawmakers who wrote it setting themselves up for armed rebellion against themselves! It was about defending the country from invasion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your society is close to collapse if you all feel the need to carry firearms just to feel safe. What kind of a society is it where you send your kids off to school not knowing whether they will come home in a body bag? In my day I only had to take care crossing the road and then avoid a fight with the school bully at the end of the day. Then there were the snakes.....


Rev I have asked the anti gun nuts like Mundame and Gabby to please tell me what law if passed would have stopped the killings at Sandy Hook. The truth is no law would have stopped it. The punk stole his mom's guns so the background check would not have worked. Bottom line is you cannot pass a law that an evil bastard like him would have obeyed.

What if it was much more difficult to get guns and his mum didn't have any for him to steal in the first place? Would 27 kids still be alive today?

[Nukeman]

The 2nd amendment was never about people arming themselves against criminals who also armed themselves. It was never about setting society up for wild west shootouts. It was never about the lawmakers who wrote it setting themselves up for armed rebellion against themselves! It was about defending the country from invasion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your society is close to collapse if you all feel the need to carry firearms just to feel safe. What kind of a society is it where you send your kids off to school not knowing whether they will come home in a body bag? In my day I only had to take care crossing the road and then avoid a fight with the school bully at the end of the day. Then there were the snakes.....



What if it was much more difficult to get guns and his mum didn't have any for him to steal in the first place? Would 27 kids still be alive today?You realize that 80-90% of the US doesn't feel this way. MOST area's of the country have very LOW gun violence, In fact I believe that this was already put out there that 95% of all gun related violence occurs in a select number of neighborhoods in less than 32 cities with populations over 250,000 people. That my friend is a SMALL part of this big coutry!! the county where I live in has seen 2 murders in the last 20 years niether of which involved a firearm...

You are wrong about the 2nd, it was put in place as a check and balance for the govt, do you honestly believe that our for fathers would fight for independence from a tyranicl govt to just hand it over to another without having a way to protect in the future??

I love how the media likes to say "tradition of hunting" the 2nd has jack and shit to do with hunting and everything to do with protection from outside forces, be that foreign or domestic that are attempting to usurp the Constitution!!!!!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You realize that 80-90% of the US doesn't feel this way. MOST area's of the country have very LOW gun violence, In fact I believe that this was already put out there that 95% of all gun related violence occurs in a select number of neighborhoods in less than 32 cities with populations over 250,000 people. That my friend is a SMALL part of this big coutry!! the county where I live in has seen 2 murders in the last 20 years niether of which involved a firearm...

You are wrong about the 2nd, it was put in place as a check and balance for the govt, do you honestly believe that our for fathers would fight for independence from a tyranicl govt to just hand it over to another without having a way to protect in the future??

I love how the media likes to say "tradition of hunting" the 2nd has jack and shit to do with hunting and everything to do with protection from outside forces, be that foreign or domestic that are attempting to usurp the Constitution!!!!!!!

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

Dead on accurate, the hunting part is only a side benefits from having weapons as they can serve more than one purpose being that they are a tool. A very necessary tool that allows for a man to fight for his freedom , security , the nation's welfare and to maintain it after winning it. -Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

The 2nd amendment was never about people arming themselves against criminals who also armed themselves. It was never about setting society up for wild west shootouts. It was never about the lawmakers who wrote it setting themselves up for armed rebellion against themselves! It was about defending the country from invasion.

You've never read the Declaration of Independence...


...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

This founding principle would be impossible without the 2nd amendment.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You've never read the Declaration of Independence...



This founding principle would be impossible without the 2nd amendment.

I hate to point this out to you my friend but Jafar sees no mention of those documents in the Koran or the hadiths.
Therefore, surely they are only infidel rantings of no importance!
Jafar 's worldview has to fit into his Koranic teachings or else he flounders around like a lost goose looking for a puddle.
Or would that be , a lost camel looking for a drink in a barren desert?..-:laugh:-Tyr

[ConHog]

http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q426/mermaid32760/GunProblem_zpsb7db7db5.jpg

Let's ban crazy eyed folk.

[Drummond]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your society is close to collapse if you all feel the need to carry firearms just to feel safe. What kind of a society is it where you send your kids off to school not knowing whether they will come home in a body bag?

I think they call it 'Israel', Jafar ...

I see a certain consistency in your thinking, though. Just as - as the Hamas supporter you've previously declared yourself to be !! - you might like to think of Israel as 'close to collapse', so your thoughts take a not too dissimilar direction when considering what YOU perceive to be the state of American society.

Well .. I, too, have a certain consistency of thought to offer you. It's this ... a society has EVERY POSSIBLE RIGHT to arm itself against aggressors who think nothing of murderous actions which can kill innocent children.

But perhaps you'd question this, Jafar ...

[DragonStryk72]

The 2nd amendment was never about people arming themselves against criminals who also armed themselves. It was never about setting society up for wild west shootouts. It was never about the lawmakers who wrote it setting themselves up for armed rebellion against themselves! It was about defending the country from invasion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your society is close to collapse if you all feel the need to carry firearms just to feel safe. What kind of a society is it where you send your kids off to school not knowing whether they will come home in a body bag? In my day I only had to take care crossing the road and then avoid a fight with the school bully at the end of the day. Then there were the snakes.....

when did I say wild west? Quit pulling that crap, its insulting, and ive not insulted you once. I expect the same courtesy in return.

They did not flat out state for a simple: because it was assumed that people had enough common sense to understand that firearms were for use in the defense of your home from criminals and he like.

What if it was much more difficult to get guns and his mum didn't have any for him to steal in the first place? Would 27 kids still be alive today?

Nope. Here we go:

He walks up on a cop, and bashes his head in with a bat out of the blue. Not he has access to shotguns, and kevlar.

Takes out a drug dealer and takes his arms.

He was willing to kill his own mother in cold blood to be able to kill dozens of small children. Name the length he would not have gone to to pull of that murder.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Equally as laughable is ignoring the fact that a double barrel shotgun and a bag of shells could have claimed the same number of victims at Sandy Hook. Even more laughable is denying that disarming law-abiding citizens won't have any effect on gun crime.

This can not be pointed out too often. Those refusing to see or admit it are agenda driven, all of them..
A man could have done the same thing there with a hammer! -Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, so here's a question: let's say for a moment that more people with firearms equals more gun crime. Why is Switzerland, then, one of The lowest crime countries in the world, as 100% of their population are not only armed with military grade rifles, but as well trained in their use, and given appropriate ammo for them?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"The right of he people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice that the manner of writing states that we already have the right, and that the government is the one being held back by the amendment. Truthfully, its even more important these days that we hold to the amendment. It is not, however, the turrany of government we must guard against. There gangs, criminals abound, and lest we forget, the occasional insanemass murderer. Without firearms, we have no defense against the unscrupulous.



Incorrect. Look up all the recent mass stabbings, some with numbers equivalent to sandy hook. Then consider that all those kinds of shootings occur in gun-free zones, where the killer knows that he will be the only one armed.

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

gun-free-zones= dem/liberal created victim waiting areas.. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Okay, so here's a question: let's say for a moment that more people with firearms equals more gun crime. Why is Switzerland, then, one of The lowest crime countries in the world, as 100% of their population are not only armed with military grade rifles, but as well trained in their use, and given appropriate ammo for them?

And Brazil is a good example, where basically only law enforcement gets guns, and you have to prove all kind of crap in order to get a license - in other words, on of the toughest on guns - and yet they are the highest in the world in gun deaths, I believe. Just looked back at an article I head read, so I'll just post it below.


Since 2003, Brazil has come close to fitting that description. Only police, people in high-risk professions and those who can prove their lives are threatened are eligible to receive gun permits. Anyone caught carrying a weapon without a permit faces up to four years on prison.

But Brazil also tops the global list for gun murders.

According to a 2011 study by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, 34,678 people were murdered by firearms in Brazil in 2008, compared to 34,147 in 2007. The numbers for both years represent a homicide-by-firearm rate of 18 per 100,000 inhabitants — more than five times higher than the U.S. rate.

Violence is so endemic in Brazil that few civilians would even consider trying to arm themselves for self-defense. Vast swaths of cities like Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are slums dominated by powerful drug gangs, who are often better armed than the police. Brazilian officials admit guns flow easily over the nation's long, porous Amazon jungle border.

http://news.yahoo.com/around-world-gun-rules-results-vary-wildly-075244259.html

[ConHog]

You realize that 80-90% of the US doesn't feel this way. MOST area's of the country have very LOW gun violence, In fact I believe that this was already put out there that 95% of all gun related violence occurs in a select number of neighborhoods in less than 32 cities with populations over 250,000 people. That my friend is a SMALL part of this big coutry!! the county where I live in has seen 2 murders in the last 20 years niether of which involved a firearm...

You are wrong about the 2nd, it was put in place as a check and balance for the govt, do you honestly believe that our for fathers would fight for independence from a tyranicl govt to just hand it over to another without having a way to protect in the future??

I love how the media likes to say "tradition of hunting" the 2nd has jack and shit to do with hunting and everything to do with protection from outside forces, be that foreign or domestic that are attempting to usurp the Constitution!!!!!!!


you can blame that on some gun supporters to. How often I've read "I have a right to hunt " LOL there is no right to hunt.

And of course you are exactly right about where gun crimes occur. Let's just call it how it is. Urban youth with the occasional outlier.

I'm willing to bet that my county has more guns than citizens. Yet we rarely see a crime committed with a gun.

Nope we have our own issues. mostly some jack knob knocking his old lady around, but no guns crimes

[Missileman]

Okay, so here's a question: let's say for a moment that more people with firearms equals more gun crime. Why is Switzerland, then, one of The lowest crime countries in the world, as 100% of their population are not only armed with military grade rifles, but as well trained in their use, and given appropriate ammo for them?

gun grabber<-----:lalala:

[bingster]

Okay, so here's a question: let's say for a moment that more people with firearms equals more gun crime. Why is Switzerland, then, one of The lowest crime countries in the world, as 100% of their population are not only armed with military grade rifles, but as well trained in their use, and given appropriate ammo for them?

I think you made the point when you said "well trained in their use". They have no standing military like we do. Their right to bear arms is to support a state militia. They don't let just anyone own guns, they are licensed and trained.

[Kathianne]

I think you made the point when you said "well trained in their use". They have no standing military like we do. Their right to bear arms is to support a state militia. They don't let just anyone own guns, they are licensed and trained.

and you've proof that's untrue for most gun owners in US? Link up!

[DragonStryk72]

you can blame that on some gun supporters to. How often I've read "I have a right to hunt " LOL there is no right to hunt.

And of course you are exactly right about where gun crimes occur. Let's just call it how it is. Urban youth with the occasional outlier.

I'm willing to bet that my county has more guns than citizens. Yet we rarely see a crime committed with a gun.

Nope we have our own issues. mostly some jack knob knocking his old lady around, but no guns crimes

Actually, you do have a right to hunt, its simply encased in the 8th amendment, under "inherent" rights.

[Kathianne]

Bingster?

[avatar4321]

Some theories that the Second Amendment was to protect against tyranny? What reason is there for the second ammendment if it isn't to enable us to protect our liberties from tyrannts?

[Abbey Marie]

Some theories that the Second Amendment was to protect against tyranny? What reason is there for the second ammendment if it isn't to enable us to protect our liberties from tyrannts?

I thought it was pretty clear.

[Robert A Whit]

Again, you are technically correct.

What some do not appear to understand, is that one amendment granting or recognizing a particular 'right', can and has been altered by another amendment (as long as the process is followed). You cannot just declare something officially unconstitutional until the process has been completed, including court challenges.


Before the Bill of Rights, the Government was told what to do and maybe when to do it and why.

But the Bill of Rights are special

They tell the Government what NOT to do.

I doubt that we will ever learn that suddenly the cops can bust down our doors with no warrants because some dip shit congressman got it changed.

Of all the Amendments, which of them is the only one to stipulate that the people's rights may not be infringed on?

Read them all. I believe you will find out that only the second amendment specifically tells the government they must NEVER infringe on it.

Does it say they can do that?

I believe this is a case where it is in black and white.

[Robert A Whit]

Here are the Bill of Rights.

So, if they managed to fuck us by getting rid of this right (second amendment) or they manage to fuck us by changing the wording, what the hell is next on that agenda? Will Democrats ever respect any of the bill of Rights?

Also, some genius who claims the second amendment can be infringed on better be able to cite law that says so. I read the second to mean our rights may not be infringed on.

Of all the bill of rights, that right is the only one it says may not be infringed on. Seems like pretty clear English to me.

============================


First Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Establishment Clause (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Establishment_Clause), Free Exercise Clause (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause); freedom of speech (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), of the press (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press), and of assembly (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly); right to petition (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States)

<DL><DD>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</DD></DL>

Second Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) – Militia (United States) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Militia_(United_States)), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms).

<DL><DD>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.[60] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-60)</DD></DL>

Third Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Protection from quartering (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Quartering_Act) of troops.

<DL><DD>No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.</DD></DL>

Fourth Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Search_and_seizure).

<DL><DD>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Warrant_(law)) shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</DD></DL>

Fifth Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – due process (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Due_process), double jeopardy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Double_jeopardy), self-incrimination (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Self-incrimination), eminent domain (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Eminent_domain).

<DL><DD>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Grand_Jury), except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.</DD></DL>

Sixth Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Trial by jury (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Trial_by_jury) and rights of the accused (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Rights_of_the_accused); Confrontation Clause (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Confrontation_Clause), speedy trial (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Speedy_trial), public trial (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Public_trial), right to counsel (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Right_to_counsel)

<DL><DD>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.</DD></DL>

Seventh Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutio n) – Civil (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Civil_law_(common_law)) trial by jury.

<DL><DD>In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.</DD></DL>

Eighth Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) – Prohibition of excessive bail (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Excessive_bail) and cruel and unusual punishment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment).

<DL><DD>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.</DD></DL>

Ninth Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

<DL><DD>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</DD></DL>

Tenth Amendment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Powers of States and people.

<DL><DD>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</DD></DL>

[ConHog]

Actually, you do have a right to hunt, its simply encased in the 8th amendment, under "inherent" rights.

True. My bad I shouldnhave said no enumerated right to hunt

[Kathianne]

True. My bad I shouldnhave said no enumerated right to hunt

You agreed to 'true.' So the rights are not just enumerated, but implied and assumed.

[Robert A Whit]

I think you made the point when you said "well trained in their use". They have no standing military like we do. Their right to bear arms is to support a state militia. They don't let just anyone own guns, they are licensed and trained.

Bingster, we live in CA.

Explain to me since both of us had extensive and diligent training in the Army, why must we submit to back ground checks?

Why must we get permits when at the time in the Army, I never once got a permit to fire many weapons. Even 50 cal machine guns and I had no permit.

If you say, well, they gave you orders. I did not see their permits to shoot rocket launchers and flame throwers nor toss hand grenades as I had to do.

The rights of the people, per the second amendment are to NEVER be infringed thus the nonsenxe we must be militia is not true.

When they closed the second with that flat statement, and you can examine the entire bill of rights and you will learn that only the second amendment states for a FACT it may not be infringed on has to mean something other than it can be infringed on.

Care to comment.

A. Why must those of us highly trained in armed combat get some permit?
B. Why endure back ground checks. I have been background checked several times. For guns i bought and a FBI check to make sure I was ok to get an appraisers license.
C. Also how can CA get away with this nonsense?

They only violate the terms of the second amendment. I looked up the ACLU and though they allege they are for our rights, not a single instance of them defending the second amendment appears on their web site. Imagine that.

[red states rule]

I think you made the point when you said "well trained in their use". They have no standing military like we do. Their right to bear arms is to support a state militia. They don't let just anyone own guns, they are licensed and trained.

Bing, please remember guns do not kill people - but abortion does. Why libs actually think taking guns away from law abiding citizens will decrease crime is beyond reason and logic. Can you tell me the last time there was a mass shooting at a gun show?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=611001#post611001)
And when I call Feinstein a bitch, that is none of your business. She represents my state.



Mundame's snappy reply:
So....you get to call a woman a bitch if she represents your state in Congress?

That's such a unique idea I think you should get away with it. ;)

Message 141 has the bill of rights.
Yup. If you read the second amendment one more time, inform the peanut gallery that it ends with the statement that the second amendment rights shall not be infringed. I have to check to find out if one may own hand grenades. I know that the Feds have federal permits so one can own a machine gun unless they recently changed the law. Feinstin acts like the second amendment is written down on toilet paper so she can flush it. I get very touchy when some pin head tries to remove my rights. If we don't fight for our rights, how can we have any rights?

[red states rule]

Message 141 has the bill of rights.
Yup. If you read the second amendment one more time, inform the peanut gallery that it ends with the statement that the second amendment rights shall not be infringed. I have to check to find out if one may own hand grenades. I know that the Feds have federal permits so one can own a machine gun unless they recently changed the law. Feinstin acts like the second amendment is written down on toilet paper so she can flush it. I get very touchy when some pin head tries to remove my rights. If we don't fight for our rights, how can we have any rights?

I suspect he only way to have Mundame say anything bad about Feinstein is if she was a - GASP - a Mormon. We all know how Mundame feels about "those people"

[jafar00]

You realize that 80-90% of the US doesn't feel this way. MOST area's of the country have very LOW gun violence, In fact I believe that this was already put out there that 95% of all gun related violence occurs in a select number of neighborhoods in less than 32 cities with populations over 250,000 people. That my friend is a SMALL part of this big coutry!! the county where I live in has seen 2 murders in the last 20 years niether of which involved a firearm...

I'd be glad if that is true. The news we get over here tells a different story. Perhaps it is blown out of proportion? You have a lot of school shootings though.


You are wrong about the 2nd, it was put in place as a check and balance for the govt, do you honestly believe that our for fathers would fight for independence from a tyranicl govt to just hand it over to another without having a way to protect in the future??

A well regulated militia
Meaning gun control? Who gets one, how they use it, what they are to do to protect the state in case of invasion such as Army Reserve...

being necessary to the security of a free state
This says "the security of a free state". The security OF the state. Not as a way of bringing the state down when you don't like the President.


I love how the media likes to say "tradition of hunting" the 2nd has jack and shit to do with hunting and everything to do with protection from outside forces, be that foreign or domestic that are attempting to usurp the Constitution!!!!!!!

I think the constitution is a bit outdated. The 3rd lets you kick the soldiers out of your lounge room after the revolution. ;)


Nope. Here we go:

He walks up on a cop, and bashes his head in with a bat out of the blue. Not he has access to shotguns, and kevlar.

Takes out a drug dealer and takes his arms.

He was willing to kill his own mother in cold blood to be able to kill dozens of small children. Name the length he would not have gone to to pull of that murder.

Nice hypotheticals.

How about he bashes a cop with a baseball bat, and is then shot and/or arrested by the other cops also dressed in riot gear and thus, he is unable to carry out the murder?

How about he tries to take the drug dealer's arms, and gets shot dead by the drug dealer's mates. Again, he can't carry out the massacre.


Some theories that the Second Amendment was to protect against tyranny? What reason is there for the second ammendment if it isn't to enable us to protect our liberties from tyrannts?

I read it as a way of defending the fledgling United States from foreign invasion until a formal Army and Police force is set up.

[Marcus Aurelius]

A well regulated militia
Meaning gun control? Who gets one, how they use it, what they are to do to protect the state in case of invasion such as Army Reserve...

being necessary to the security of a free state
This says "the security of a free state". The security OF the state. Not as a way of bringing the state down when you don't like the President.



I think the constitution is a bit outdated. The 3rd lets you kick the soldiers out of your lounge room after the revolution. ;)



I read it as a way of defending the fledgling United States from foreign invasion until a formal Army and Police force is set up.

Point 1: Read my sig link, dumb ass.

Point 2: You continually prove your stupidity by misunderstanding the 2nd amendment.

[ConHog]

Bing, please remember guns do not kill people - but abortion does. Why libs actually think taking guns away from law abiding citizens will decrease crime is beyond reason and logic. Can you tell me the last time there was a mass shooting at a gun show?

good point
abortions don't kill babies, people do.

[Voted4Reagan]

well.... seems Gabby and the loony lefties would have us leave our second amendmant rights in the hands of foreign nationalists to decide...

I see old " FART and DART-ASAURUS" has bailed out again after seeing the stupidity of her opening argument..

but we're used to that....

Run away Gabby..... Run away!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

well.... seems Gabby and the loony lefties would have us leave our second amendmant rights in the hands of foreign nationalists to decide...

I see old " FART and DART-ASAURUS" has bailed out again after seeing the stupidity of her opening argument..

but we're used to that....

Run away Gabby..... Run away!!!

Hit and run is her M.O... Or would that be better said, (s) hit and run??-:laugh:--Tyr

Remember she has her defenders here, which indicates even a fool can have fans..

[Voted4Reagan]

Hit and run is her M.O... Or would that be better said, (s) hit and run??-:laugh:--Tyr

Remember she has her defenders here, which indicates even a fool can have fans..

yes... very true.....

but arent FART AND DART and SHIT AND RUN basically the same thing?

either is applicable.....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

yes... very true.....

but arent FART AND DART and SHIT AND RUN basically the same thing?

either is applicable.....

Pretty much are the same , good point..-:beer:--Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

Pretty much are the same , good point..-:beer:--Tyr

The new GABBY SMILEY

4412

[gabosaurus]

The unique sadness that is the promised new gun control laws, as told from a heartbreaking personal perspective. :(

RICHMOND, VA—As the Obama Administration signaled its determination to pass through extensive gun control reforms, a local AR-15 assault rifle told reporters Wednesday that it is beginning to fear it might never actually get the chance to kill an innocent human being in the course of its lifetime.

The Colt-manufactured assault rifle confirmed that, given the administration’s intention to advance gun control measures designed to curb the nation’s ready access to deadly firearms such as itself, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the weapon will ever have the opportunity to act on its long-held desire to brutally execute even a single innocent person.

“Ever since I came off the assembly line, I've dreamed of being used to annihilate dozens of frantic people in a deadly rampage; it’s what I was made to do,” the semiautomatic rifle said from its display stand at Richmond-area gun retailer Pete’s Munitions. “But if the government clamps down on sales of guns like me, then I can pretty much kiss that dream goodbye. And, I have to say, the idea of that happening is massively disappointing for me.”

“Just the idea that I might actually never get the chance to let loose a torrent of bullets on a roomful of bystanders is inconceivable to me,” the rifle added. “It’s awful. I mean, what else am I supposed to do with my life?”

The AR-15 further lamented that gun control advocates’ plan to impose strict background checks on gun sales and restrict firearms access to mentally ill individuals would likely prevent the 5.56 mm, magazine-fed assault rifle from falling into the hands of the type of unhinged individual who would be likely to put the rifle to “[its] intended use” of butchering helpless civilians.

“Believe me, if these new laws go into effect, there’s almost zero chance someone like that ever gets their hands on me,” the visibly emotional military-grade armament told reporters. “At best, I’ll probably end up in some responsible gun owner’s basement, spending the rest of my life plugging paper targets at a shooting range until I rust. Not exactly what you’d call a bright future for a precision-engineered killing machine like me.”

“Imagine if your life’s dream was suddenly just taken away from you, just like that,” the gun added. “How would you feel?”
Though a series of legally obtained firearms have left a staggering body count in recent shootings at Newtown, Aurora, and many other massacre sites, the lightweight assault rifle claimed that its own ambitions are relatively modest.

“Honestly, I don’t even need to mow down an entire schoolyard of shrieking children, nothing like that,” the gun explained. “I mean, that would be fantastic, obviously, but at this point I’ll take what I can get. I would be thrilled to take out even one terrified mall shopper. That’s it. Just one. Or two, if possible. Is that really so much to ask?”

[Robert A Whit]

Speaking only for myself, since I am an old fart anyway ...

We give up our rights from the second amendment and you all give up your so called right to abortions and any and all contraceptives.

That way, we both save lives.

DEAL?????

Your side has killed many more people than our side has.

[aboutime]

The unique sadness that is the promised new gun control laws, as told from a heartbreaking personal perspective. :(

RICHMOND, VA—As the Obama Administration signaled its determination to pass through extensive gun control reforms, a local AR-15 assault rifle told reporters Wednesday that it is beginning to fear it might never actually get the chance to kill an innocent human being in the course of its lifetime.

The Colt-manufactured assault rifle confirmed that, given the administration’s intention to advance gun control measures designed to curb the nation’s ready access to deadly firearms such as itself, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the weapon will ever have the opportunity to act on its long-held desire to brutally execute even a single innocent person.

“Ever since I came off the assembly line, I've dreamed of being used to annihilate dozens of frantic people in a deadly rampage; it’s what I was made to do,” the semiautomatic rifle said from its display stand at Richmond-area gun retailer Pete’s Munitions. “But if the government clamps down on sales of guns like me, then I can pretty much kiss that dream goodbye. And, I have to say, the idea of that happening is massively disappointing for me.”

“Just the idea that I might actually never get the chance to let loose a torrent of bullets on a roomful of bystanders is inconceivable to me,” the rifle added. “It’s awful. I mean, what else am I supposed to do with my life?”

The AR-15 further lamented that gun control advocates’ plan to impose strict background checks on gun sales and restrict firearms access to mentally ill individuals would likely prevent the 5.56 mm, magazine-fed assault rifle from falling into the hands of the type of unhinged individual who would be likely to put the rifle to “[its] intended use” of butchering helpless civilians.

“Believe me, if these new laws go into effect, there’s almost zero chance someone like that ever gets their hands on me,” the visibly emotional military-grade armament told reporters. “At best, I’ll probably end up in some responsible gun owner’s basement, spending the rest of my life plugging paper targets at a shooting range until I rust. Not exactly what you’d call a bright future for a precision-engineered killing machine like me.”

“Imagine if your life’s dream was suddenly just taken away from you, just like that,” the gun added. “How would you feel?”
Though a series of legally obtained firearms have left a staggering body count in recent shootings at Newtown, Aurora, and many other massacre sites, the lightweight assault rifle claimed that its own ambitions are relatively modest.

“Honestly, I don’t even need to mow down an entire schoolyard of shrieking children, nothing like that,” the gun explained. “I mean, that would be fantastic, obviously, but at this point I’ll take what I can get. I would be thrilled to take out even one terrified mall shopper. That’s it. Just one. Or two, if possible. Is that really so much to ask?”




As expected, and as usual. Gabby intentionally forgot...while trying to convince us that GUN'S have a brain, and can talk. Is that NO WEAPON has ever been arrested, or blamed for any crime of passion, or hatred ON THEIR OWN.
Funny thing is. Behind, near, or around every weapon is......
A HUMAN BEING.

It's like blaming GM, or FORD for bad drivers who DRINK and DRIVE.

[gabosaurus]

Your side has killed many more people than our side has.

My "side" hasn't killed any "people" at all.
You think this is a soccer game or something?

[aboutime]

My "side" hasn't killed any "people" at all.
You think this is a soccer game or something?


Gabby. He was merely talking about those on your side who are BRAINLESS, and always blame whoever is closest for their own stupidity.

[revelarts]

there's a dark hypocrisy in Obama's concern over the children that have died in the schools here.
I'm Not sure how many have die in the last several years but the since
2004 Drone strikes have killed over 150 children.




CNN

A study by Stanford and NYU claims only about 2% of killed targets are "high-level"
Innocent civilians are killed, maimed and traumatized by drone strikes, the report says
Drones in Pakistan killed 176 children from 2004 to 2012, an independent group says
Obama has said a target must meet "very tight and very strict standards"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/


the right calls them collateral damage. "don't you know what war is?"
the left ignores them and claims it's better than any republican.

Why's Obama hand wringing over nut jobs with weapons in the US that might one day maybe killing children.
But he in his right mind plan to continue to target areas he knows WILL kill children to rid the earth a a handful of people he's GOT NO AUTHORITY to kill anyway.
El Presidenta assassinating so called enemies of the state has more blood on his hands and 3 mass shooter put together ..176 children.


AT least if the people have weapons they have a chance to stop a crazed shooter. In Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and 3 other countries the people and never even see the the shot or the shooter.

[Robert A Whit]

My "side" hasn't killed any "people" at all.
You think this is a soccer game or something?

I think you confessed your spouse and you have no children. Frankly I am ultra suspicious your spouse is a woman. So perhaps you killed no children, but your side killed millions.

My side has very few notches in our gun stock. (my side believes fully in the rights of the second amendment)

And no, I do not side with killers. I want to know if you plan to swap your rights that are not in the constitution for my rights that are in the document?

Why did it bother you so much that you chopped off most of my message?

[Kathianne]

Gabby has a daughter, early middle school I believe. Many of us remember when she adopted her and have 'watched her grow.' Funny thing, I can't remember anyone asking Gabby, "Why she chose to adopt?" Most wouldn't be so rude.

Her husband has been in some Gabby photo's if memory serves, this site or earlier, really the rudeness of some is breathtaking.

[Robert A Whit]

If Gabby is married to a man, she can simply say so. has she also claimed to have abortions?

Gabby is ok by me but we have other women who simply must be rude.

[ConHog]

If Gabby is married to a man, she can simply say so. has she also claimed to have abortions?

Gabby is ok by me but we have other women who simply must be rude.

Shut up robert. Kath called you out for being a dick ps leave gabs family out of things

[Kathianne]

If Gabby is married to a man, she can simply say so. has she also claimed to have abortions?

Gabby is ok by me but we have other women who simply must be rude.

By all that is holy, you are more way back than Neanderthal.

[aboutime]

By all that is holy, you are more way back than Neanderthal.


How bout this "WAYBACK"? 4417 Neanderthal's were smarter.

[Kathianne]

How bout this "WAYBACK"? 4417 Neanderthal's were smarter.

Doesn't work for Bobby, sorry.

[Robert A Whit]

By all that is holy, you are more way back than Neanderthal.

Its rude talk like that, that got you put on my shit list to begin with. Have you no ability to be polite? Look, if you want another fight, tell me this in the CAGE.

As to old Con, go sit in your closet and whine some more.

CH: "I want to be abusive to Robert but oh my god will I whine if he won't debate me."