America's Gun Violence

1…243244246248249…903

Comments

  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,577
    PJPOWER said:

    CM189191 said:

    Godfather. said:

    CM189191 said:

    unsung said:

    I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.

    ftfy

    There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
    the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.

    Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
    Believe what you want. The highest courts in the United States all agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to "The People" and not only a militia.
    I didn't go to law school, but did all the higher courts chime in on the Heller case?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited March 2017
    Go Beavers said:

    PJPOWER said:

    CM189191 said:

    Godfather. said:

    CM189191 said:

    unsung said:

    I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.

    ftfy

    There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
    the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.

    Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
    Believe what you want. The highest courts in the United States all agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to "The People" and not only a militia.
    I didn't go to law school, but did all the higher courts chime in on the Heller case?
    The Supreme Court held:[44]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    From Wikipedia for those of us that do not have law degrees, lol
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,577
    Right, that's the Supreme Court. You said highest courts plural. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but that would include other federal courts.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    PJPOWER said:

    Go Beavers said:

    PJPOWER said:

    CM189191 said:

    Godfather. said:

    CM189191 said:

    unsung said:

    I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.

    ftfy

    There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
    the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.

    Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
    Believe what you want. The highest courts in the United States all agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to "The People" and not only a militia.
    I didn't go to law school, but did all the higher courts chime in on the Heller case?
    The Supreme Court held:[44]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    From Wikipedia for those of us that do not have law degrees, lol
    Supreme Court can change it's mind.
    It's funny to see the die hard originalist ignore the original.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Go Beavers said:

    PJPOWER said:

    CM189191 said:

    Godfather. said:

    CM189191 said:

    unsung said:

    I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.

    ftfy

    There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
    the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.

    Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
    Believe what you want. The highest courts in the United States all agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to "The People" and not only a militia.
    I didn't go to law school, but did all the higher courts chime in on the Heller case?
    The Supreme Court held:[44]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    From Wikipedia for those of us that do not have law degrees, lol
    Supreme Court can change it's mind.
    It's funny to see the die hard originalist ignore the original.
    Well until they do again...you are currently wrong if you believe that gun ownership protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to Militia. Go look up and read Scalia's thoughts on the issue. He explained it pretty well given the language of the time it was written.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Go Beavers said:

    PJPOWER said:

    CM189191 said:

    Godfather. said:

    CM189191 said:

    unsung said:

    I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.

    ftfy

    There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
    the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.

    Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
    Believe what you want. The highest courts in the United States all agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to "The People" and not only a militia.
    I didn't go to law school, but did all the higher courts chime in on the Heller case?
    The Supreme Court held:[44]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    From Wikipedia for those of us that do not have law degrees, lol
    Supreme Court can change it's mind.
    It's funny to see the die hard originalist ignore the original.
    Well until they do again...you are currently wrong if you believe that gun ownership protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to Militia. Go look up and read Scalia's thoughts on the issue. He explained it pretty well given the language of the time it was written.
    No thanks, Scalia is well-known for an ability to bend the truth in convincing ways.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    I'm fine with considering everyone subject to militia status, but from an intellectual standpoint, doing so and then simply throwing out the "well-regulated" part is dishonest and disgusting.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited March 2017
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Go Beavers said:

    PJPOWER said:

    CM189191 said:

    Godfather. said:

    CM189191 said:

    unsung said:

    I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.

    ftfy

    There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
    the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.

    Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
    Believe what you want. The highest courts in the United States all agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to "The People" and not only a militia.
    I didn't go to law school, but did all the higher courts chime in on the Heller case?
    The Supreme Court held:[44]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    From Wikipedia for those of us that do not have law degrees, lol
    Supreme Court can change it's mind.
    It's funny to see the die hard originalist ignore the original.
    Well until they do again...you are currently wrong if you believe that gun ownership protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to Militia. Go look up and read Scalia's thoughts on the issue. He explained it pretty well given the language of the time it was written.
    No thanks, Scalia is well-known for an ability to bend the truth in convincing ways.
    He is not the only one with a law degree that interprets it in such as a way that it was not specifically directed towards militias. Do a little research....It is the right of "the people". But keep on believing what you want...even though you are 100% wrong.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Go Beavers said:

    PJPOWER said:

    CM189191 said:

    Godfather. said:

    CM189191 said:

    unsung said:

    I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.

    ftfy

    There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
    the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.

    Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
    Believe what you want. The highest courts in the United States all agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to "The People" and not only a militia.
    I didn't go to law school, but did all the higher courts chime in on the Heller case?
    The Supreme Court held:[44]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    From Wikipedia for those of us that do not have law degrees, lol
    Supreme Court can change it's mind.
    It's funny to see the die hard originalist ignore the original.
    Well until they do again...you are currently wrong if you believe that gun ownership protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to Militia. Go look up and read Scalia's thoughts on the issue. He explained it pretty well given the language of the time it was written.
    No thanks, Scalia is well-known for an ability to bend the truth in convincing ways.
    He is not the only one with a law degree that interprets it in such as a way that it was not specifically directed towards militias. Do a little research....It is the right of "the people". But keep on believing what you want...even though you are 100% wrong.
    There is plenty of disagreement, and most of it is centered around the fact that no other clause in the Constitution is assumed to be extraneous. Imagine if the same rigourous interpretation of the language of the first amendment was used. The consequences could be disastrous.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    And again,
    rgambs said:

    I'm fine with considering everyone subject to militia status, but from an intellectual standpoint, doing so and then simply throwing out the "well-regulated" part is dishonest and disgusting.

    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    rgambs said:

    And again,

    rgambs said:

    I'm fine with considering everyone subject to militia status, but from an intellectual standpoint, doing so and then simply throwing out the "well-regulated" part is dishonest and disgusting.

    https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
    "the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation."
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited March 2017
    rgambs said:

    It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
    The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited March 2017
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
    The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

    You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberals swing their votes based on this. If nothing else, the majority of people in the US believe in an individuals right to own firearms. In all honesty, I'm not sure I know a single person that does not own at least one...That being said, I do not hang around with any felons that I am aware of, lol
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    edited March 2017
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
    The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

    You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
    Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited March 2017
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
    The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

    You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
    Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
    I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
    The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

    You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
    Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
    I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.
    I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one.
    I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people.
    What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
    The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

    You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
    Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
    I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.
    I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one.
    I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people.
    What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.
    So all of this hubbub and we only slightly disagree on the issue, lol. Well, it was entertaining I guess :)
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    rgambs said:

    It isn't a prefatory clause, it is an ablative absolute, which was common at the time and was used PRECISELY to clarify intent, otherwise it shouldn't exist at all.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you professor. And I predict that this interpretation will be recognized as long as there is a United States, so I'm not sure why we are even arguing about it. Starting to seem a bit redundant.
    The Supreme Court also found that corporations are people, conservative courts make all sorts of decisions that don't make much sense.

    You make it seem as though conservatives are the only ones that believe people have the right to own firearms...This is most definitely not true. It's actually a pretty bipartisan issue and many conservatives and liberal swing their votes based on this.
    Not at all, you are misstating my position. Individuals certainly have the right to bear arms, but that right is not independent of the law and sensible regulations implemented by the legislature. Your strict interpretation should allow murderers to have guns in prison! After all, that right shall not be infringed. If that is the operative clause and it is absolute, there's no question, right?
    I never said that. I do not think you are infringing on a person's rights if they have abused them (in the case of murderers in prison). Sensible regulations does not = infringement, but we just disagree on the line between sensible regulations vs infringements. I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned and you do. I do not believe that firearms should only be in the hands of "well regulated militia", but you do. I believe that the right to own firearms is of "the people", and you do not.
    I do not believe semi-automatic rifles should be banned, in fact, I own one.
    I also do not believe that only those in well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms, I do believe it is the right of the people.
    What I don't believe in is enthusiasts and deranged "patriots" disregarding and refuting the first half of the amendment in a dishonest attempt to label any regulation as infringement.
    So all of this hubbub and we only slightly disagree on the issue, lol. Well, it was entertaining I guess :)
    We disagree on high capacity magazines as well.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories