America's Gun Violence

1…233234236238239…903

Comments

  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    mace1229 said:

    My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
    Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
    If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

    It isn't clearly written the way you want it to be, it is only clear in that way when you use your precious dot dot dots in place of the first clause. With the first clause intact, it is clearly written that the right to bear arms is given in the context of a well regulated militia. That those rights shall not be infringed is contradictory to the initial portion of the amendment. That is why it is a piece of crap that is still argued over, because it was not clearly written.
    This has been explained time after time and only a couple of you do not get it. On the flip side, why do you ignore the part about "the right of the people"? As far as militia's go...
    mi·li·tia n.

    1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

    2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

    3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

    [From the Latin term for warfare, military service, soldier.]

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    This leads me to believe that their intent was directed at all able bodied males of the nation. Even today, all males over 18 have to sign up for a possible draft and all Americans could theoretically be called to arms if a threat warranted. It would make much more sense for them to already be armed in such a crisis instead of trying to arm the population at a moment's notice. Of course the threat was different then than today, but I believe the idea still holds true. The video I posted actually did cover this pretty well as apposed to what Go Beavers said (or blocked due to denial). Either way, militia in the context of the time does not fit today's definition. And the definition of "the people" has also expanded over time to include women, black people, etc. Of course the right to be armed can be limited (just like there are limits to free speech)...but infringed suggests extreme limitations...to what extent is the only thing I'm really interested in debating anymore.
    I don't ignore it, and haven't in this discussion. My argument has been consistent in pointing out that it is YOU who are ignoring part of the amendment. The part about the well-rounded militia.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    That's weak, and no, I don't watch video links.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited March 2017
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    That's weak, and no, I don't watch video links.
    Then I have no further discussion with you. What I said is what the law professor at UCLA said...if you think your argument is stronger than his, then no one will be able to pull your leftist head out of the sand.
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,905
    rgambs said:

    mace1229 said:

    My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
    Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
    If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

    It isn't clearly written the way you want it to be, it is only clear in that way when you use your precious dot dot dots in place of the first clause. With the first clause intact, it is clearly written that the right to bear arms is given in the context of a well regulated militia. That those rights shall not be infringed is contradictory to the initial portion of the amendment. That is why it is a piece of crap that is still argued over, because it was not clearly written.
    Someone will have to explain how beginning with "..." will suddenly clear things up for me.
    In the meantime, no where does it state that the militia has a right to bear arms. It states "The People" have that right. I am married to someone with a masters in English and my sister in law is an English professor, despite my poor grammar and spelling. We don't ignore the part about the militia either, we address it, and it is used to explain why the second amendment exists. The right is given to The People for the purposes of a militia. Not the other way around.
    As pointed out most people, including gun owners are for gun restrictions. I think there is a better argument that this amendment needs to be further amended to regulate gun control for effectively.
    Agreed it is poorly written, otherwise there would be zero debate.
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Once a day, sometimes twice.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,618
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    The video, where he doesn't comment on the well regulated part, but makes huge reaches and leaps to try and interpret the 2nd amendment to fit personal beliefs? Don't you ever wonder, if it was so important, why didn't they spend a little more time on making it more clear? And what will you guys do when you hit the upper age limit of the militia? (Thanks for your service, by the way!) Pro-gun folks refer to the original intent when it fits their argument, and then back off the original intent when it doesn't. So yesterday trump sneakily signs into law making easier for mentally ill people to get guns. Is this part of the original intent? And why no usual trump fanfare around it?
  • ponytd
    ponytd Nashville Posts: 671
    edited March 2017
    Go Beavers said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    The video, where he doesn't comment on the well regulated part, but makes huge reaches and leaps to try and interpret the 2nd amendment to fit personal beliefs? Don't you ever wonder, if it was so important, why didn't they spend a little more time on making it more clear? And what will you guys do when you hit the upper age limit of the militia? (Thanks for your service, by the way!) Pro-gun folks refer to the original intent when it fits their argument, and then back off the original intent when it doesn't. So yesterday trump sneakily signs into law making easier for mentally ill people to get guns. Is this part of the original intent? And why no usual trump fanfare around it?
    In reference to the EO that Trump overturned, yes it's true that NRA wanted it gone, but you know who else wanted it gone? The ACLU. It was a poorly put together EO that restricted people who receive disability benefits because they suffer from "mental illness",which includes eating disorders, from the ability to purchase a firearm . Yes, that EO restricted people who shouldn't be buying a gun from being able to buy one, but it also restricted people who should be able to buy one from being able to.

    As a gun owner, I hope that they pass new legislature to enact stricter gun laws that is more defined to stop people that have no business from being able to buy one. I know lots of people who own guns, but I know no one who thinks that just any person should be able to buy a gun. Every single person I know who owns guns wants more but better restrictions.
    Post edited by ponytd on
  • rssesq
    rssesq Fairfield County Posts: 3,299

  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,760
    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,760
    edited March 2017
    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,905
    edited March 2017
    ponytd said:

    Go Beavers said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    PJPOWER said:

    unsung said:

    My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.

    The federal Constitution also says that you are the militia, so you are double covered :)
    Ahhh but are you well-regulated?
    Of course not.
    Bound by state and federal laws and many other regulations based on the arms that one can have...I would say yes, well regulated. Did you watch the video I posted? All of this is covered.
    The video, where he doesn't comment on the well regulated part, but makes huge reaches and leaps to try and interpret the 2nd amendment to fit personal beliefs? Don't you ever wonder, if it was so important, why didn't they spend a little more time on making it more clear? And what will you guys do when you hit the upper age limit of the militia? (Thanks for your service, by the way!) Pro-gun folks refer to the original intent when it fits their argument, and then back off the original intent when it doesn't. So yesterday trump sneakily signs into law making easier for mentally ill people to get guns. Is this part of the original intent? And why no usual trump fanfare around it?
    In reference to the EO that Trump overturned, yes it's true that NRA wanted it gone, but you know who else wanted it gone? The ACLU. It was a poorly put together EO that restricted people who receive disability benefits because they suffer from "mental illness",which includes eating disorders, from the ability to purchase a firearm . Yes, that EO restricted people who shouldn't be buying a gun from being able to buy one, but it also restricted people who should be able to buy one from being able to.

    As a gun owner, I hope that they pass new legislature to enact stricter gun laws that is more defined to stop people that have no business from being able to buy one. I know lots of people who own guns, but I know no one who thinks that just any person should be able to buy a gun. Every single person I know who owns guns wants more but better restrictions.
    I didn't find a lot of info about the bill Obama passed, but that was pretty much what I gathered too. There are a lot of "mentally ill" people (at least according to the bill they are mentally ill) who pose no physical threat, but this still classified them as too dangerous to own a gun. From what I gathered he reversed it because it unfairly placed too many people into that category.
    I also agree with your last statement. I would also be for strict gun laws that target the right people, and not just everyone.
  • rssesq
    rssesq Fairfield County Posts: 3,299
    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So basically only the super rich should have armed protection for themselves and family. Point well taken.

  • i_lov_it
    i_lov_it Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,007
    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So one Law for one Person and another Law for another?
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,760
    edited March 2017
    rssesq said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So basically only the super rich should have armed protection for themselves and family. Point well taken.

    Hahaha, NOW you take up that cause? I don't see you whining about rich people being able to feed their kids and pay all their bills while poor people can't, but when guns come up you become an advocate for equality between the classes? This is about TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE for the sake of PUBLIC SAFETY. Not about money. A poor person can become a cop or whatever just like a rich person can. And I really never heard of a poor person who needs to be protected by the secret service or a gang of private bodyguards, have you?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,760
    edited March 2017
    i_lov_it said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    my2hands said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rssesq said:


    :confused: Next to no one thinks gun control should keep people in the protection industry from carrying guns.
    It's an interesting point actually. What's the difference if Bloomberg carries the gun or he pays someone to carry it for him? And why should one person be allowed the right to carry a firearm for self defense (or have someone carry for him in this case) and another person is not?

    Tricky stuff
    Not really. Carrying privately vs carrying professionally. It's not a very complicated distinction. One is specifically trained to deal with dangerous situations and to use their firearms in a way that doesn't, say, endanger by-standers too much, and they are less likely use the gun unnecessarily or misread a situation, etc. The other is most likely completely clueless about how to deal with dangerous situations like that, and may endanger innocent people while trying to protect themselves, or may not even be able to read the situation well enough to determine if they are even in danger or not, which could lead to unjustified shootings.
    So one Law for one Person and another Law for another?
    Yes, just like there is a law that people have to have a driver's license to drive a car, or be a doctor to perform surgery, or be a soldier with special skills to arm a stealth fighter. Not exactly a befuddling notion, is it?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • rssesq
    rssesq Fairfield County Posts: 3,299
    he doesn't want licensed people carrying arms either. HE WANTS MERICA'S GUNS WITH A PASSION OF A FIVE FOOTER!. lol
This discussion has been closed.

Categories