The founding fathers didn't write the 2A for hunting

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

so in your post about Chicago then, in light of this, do you now reverse your stance?
It seems that local wishes should apply too. Chicago chose for their municipalty that they prefered that no one carried concealed.

[/quote]


I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Chicago is not a state as much as it tries to control the state. The Supreme Court has already affirmed the Bill of Rights as individual rights.[/quote]
so its states rights only? not local? or scotus supreme of the land?

why then is NYC's ban on guns still in effect?

Further please answer the question I asked about well regulated.
What does that mean in context to the ENTIRE amendment?
Who has the regulating authority?
Should all owners be required to be a part of a militia if the want to own a weapon(s)?
And what body would be in authority over this militia?
Who or what entity can establish what "well" is?
as in well enough?

catefrances

unsung wrote:

You guys act like its never happened before. Read a damn history book.

my country was run by a military junta at one stage... but back then we also used rum as currency.

unsung

JimmyV wrote:

unsung wrote:

Trying. Being Libertarian isn't as popular as I would hope.

Honestly, the candidate you champion in your avatar bares some responsibility for that. Had he chosen to run a third party campaign as a Libertarian he would have not only given his voters an alternative but also brought countless new voters into the fold. I was greatly disappointed by his decision to enter the Republican primary and then "suspend" his campaign, particularly since he is retiring from Congress anyway.

Actually it is widely thought he did not do that so he wouldn't spoil Rand's 2016 run. Let's be honest this country has a corrupt two party system that can more than likely only be fixed from within.

Zoso

the founding fathers would have thought twice if they knew what was in store for America..

unsung

fife wrote:

unsung wrote:

See I have a issue with us making any change to anything to be like other countries.

Do you mind explaining why?

It's one thing to take the best ideas and incorporate them, someone mentioned benchmarking. It's another to do something just to get in line. What's good for Iran may not be good for Canada, etc.

unsung

Zoso wrote:

the founding fathers would have thought twice if they knew what was in store for America..

They certainly would have. They would have been much much clearer.

unsung

mickeyrat wrote:

so its states rights only? not local? or scotus supreme of the land?

why then is NYC's ban on guns still in effect?

Further please answer the question I asked about well regulated.
What does that mean in context to the ENTIRE amendment?
Who has the regulating authority?
Should all owners be required to be a part of a militia if the want to own a weapon(s)?
And what body would be in authority over this militia?
Who or what entity can establish what "well" is?
as in well enough?

I don't know about the NY ban, I don't live there. I can't comment because I don't know the particulars.


The whole thing was written to protect the State and the individual from the Federal Government. The Federal Government was never supposed to be overlords.

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

so its states rights only? not local? or scotus supreme of the land?

why then is NYC's ban on guns still in effect?

Further please answer the question I asked about well regulated.
What does that mean in context to the ENTIRE amendment?
Who has the regulating authority?
Should all owners be required to be a part of a militia if the want to own a weapon(s)?
And what body would be in authority over this militia?
Who or what entity can establish what "well" is?
as in well enough?

I don't know about the NY ban, I don't live there. I can't comment because I don't know the particulars.


The whole thing was written to protect the State and the individual from the Federal Government. The Federal Government was never supposed to be overlords.

thaanks for answering all my questions.

Zoso

unsung wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

so its states rights only? not local? or scotus supreme of the land?

why then is NYC's ban on guns still in effect?

Further please answer the question I asked about well regulated.
What does that mean in context to the ENTIRE amendment?
Who has the regulating authority?
Should all owners be required to be a part of a militia if the want to own a weapon(s)?
And what body would be in authority over this militia?
Who or what entity can establish what "well" is?
as in well enough?

I don't know about the NY ban, I don't live there. I can't comment because I don't know the particulars.


The whole thing was written to protect the State and the individual from the Federal Government. The Federal Government was never supposed to be overlords.

this is a serious question unsung.... would you prefer to be safe with 200 gun deaths per year or would you like to keep it as is with 10, 000 and having a weak government (regarding their power over Americans)?

unsung

mickeyrat wrote:

why then is NYC's ban on guns still in effect?

Further please answer the question I asked about well regulated.
What does that mean in context to the ENTIRE amendment?
Who has the regulating authority?
Should all owners be required to be a part of a militia if the want to own a weapon(s)?
And what body would be in authority over this militia?
Who or what entity can establish what "well" is?
as in well enough?
thaanks for answering all my questions.

The amendment has two parts.

The first pertains to the state, the second to the individual.

I don't know about NY.

unsung

Zoso wrote:

this is a serious question unsung.... would you prefer to be safe with 200 gun deaths per year or would you like to keep it as is with 10, 000 and having a weak government (regarding their power over Americans)?

I'm smart enough to know a device is the not the problem, the person operating it is. I don't want anyone to die. The only description I want of my federal government is one that follows the Constitution, it has not for a long time.

catefrances

if you take the stick out the childs hand they can not hit anyone with it.

unsung

catefrances wrote:

if you take the stick out the childs hand they can not hit anyone with it.

Children should be better behaved. Mentally defective persons should be well supervised.

catefrances

unsung wrote:

catefrances wrote:

if you take the stick out the childs hand they can not hit anyone with it.

Children should be better behaved. Mentally defective persons should be well supervised.

yes if only children were little robots who never did anything wrong. and yes people with mental illness should be better looked after.

unsung

I don't see the comparison of a child to an adult in this case. One still has to learn, the other should know.

catefrances

youre the one who said children should be better behaved.

Smellyman

I think it should only be muzzle loading guns as the founders envisioned.

that wouls sure cut down on killing sprees.

unsung

catefrances wrote:

youre the one who said children should be better behaved.

Sorry but you brought up the stick and child. I was merely following your initial thought in case it went somewhere.

unsung

Smellyman wrote:

I think it should only be muzzle loading guns as the founders envisioned.

that wouls sure cut down on killing sprees.

I'm good with that. Let's get rid of the internet and cell phones too. I doubt that they had that in mind when writing about free speech.

Zoso

human behavior is a lot harder to change.. even with thearpy it's a long drawn out process for anyone to change... what is quicker?

human behavior is the same around the world... americans are the only ones killing eachother with guns.

take the stick from their hands....

Zoso

unsung wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

I think it should only be muzzle loading guns as the founders envisioned.

that wouls sure cut down on killing sprees.

I'm good with that. Let's get rid of the internet and cell phones too. I doubt that they had that in mind when writing about free speech.

internet, cell phones don't kill anyone.. either does free speech.

unsung

Words have caused war, sir.

catefrances

unsung wrote:

catefrances wrote:

youre the one who said children should be better behaved.

Sorry but you brought up the stick and child. I was merely following your initial thought in case it went somewhere.

my apologies if what i was saying was too subtle to grasp.

Zoso

unsung wrote:

Words have caused war, sir.

no one talking to another person DIRECTLY kills anyone.. me saying anything to you can't automatically kill you.

markin ball

The FF were smart enough to know the constitution may need to adapt from time to time and that they were not all wise and all knowing of all events and circumstances throughout eternity. They put the instructions in there on how to change it for goodness sake. How does the citizenry defend itself from the federal governments nuclear weapons, biological and chemical agents, etc? The 2A is practically irrelevant. I think if the FF where writing up the constitution today they would seek to provide more realistic mechanisms against tyrrany.

fife

unsung wrote:

fife wrote:

unsung wrote:

See I have a issue with us making any change to anything to be like other countries.

Do you mind explaining why?

It's one thing to take the best ideas and incorporate them, someone mentioned benchmarking. It's another to do something just to get in line. What's good for Iran may not be good for Canada, etc.

well that is a change from what you wrote before. Of course what is good for Iran may not be good for Canada but at the same time some things that are good for Canada might also be good for the USA, would you not agree?

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

unsung wrote:

Trying. Being Libertarian isn't as popular as I would hope.

Honestly, the candidate you champion in your avatar bares some responsibility for that. Had he chosen to run a third party campaign as a Libertarian he would have not only given his voters an alternative but also brought countless new voters into the fold. I was greatly disappointed by his decision to enter the Republican primary and then "suspend" his campaign, particularly since he is retiring from Congress anyway.

Actually it is widely thought he did not do that so he wouldn't spoil Rand's 2016 run. Let's be honest this country has a corrupt two party system that can more than likely only be fixed from within.

Oh, I absolutely agree that he did not run in order to preserve his legacy son's future prospects. But I do find it distasteful that he built this political brand based on being an independent voice only to try and shift its focus to helping a son who has shown much more interest in towing the party line. Had Ron Paul run as a Libertarian he would have all my respect. But the way he chose to go out really tarnished him in my eyes. Was a much bigger fan in 2008 than in 2012.