Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Fire arms, of course, have not existed for 2600 years--stupidity, however, is eternal. The second amendment has not been in force for even 260 years. It was intended to provide a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state. The militia has, throughout our history, shown itself not worth the powder needed to blow it to hell. In Heller, even this far right-wing, activist court held that laws that regulate fire arms for law-abiding purposes do not infringe the second amendment.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The only thing that could halt the carnage is to get the media to stop glorifying mass murderers.

They could expose the reasons behind Islamic terror but that aint going to happen. They would rather dispense the blame on society and what they are allowed to do in all of these incidents ( terror too) while they determine how we might fix it.

Thanks for nothing but avoiding reality until it can be shaped completely. Taking any right away is dangerous.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

even this far right-wing, activist court

How so? What far right activism are you referring to?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Fire arms, of course, have not existed for 2600 years--

The right of a free man to be armed, however, has been around for that long. And that right is what the Second Amendment protects.

Setanta wrote:

--stupidity, however, is eternal.

Civil rights are hardly stupid. They are at the core of any free nation.

Setanta wrote:

The second amendment has not been in force for even 260 years.

The Second Amendment merely protects a preexisting right -- a preexisting right that has been around for 2600 years.

Setanta wrote:

It was intended to provide a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state.

The right of free men to be armed goes hand in hand with the militia.

Setanta wrote:

The militia has, throughout our history, shown itself not worth the powder needed to blow it to hell.

If so, that doesn't invalidate our civil rights.

Setanta wrote:

In Heller, even this far right-wing, activist court held that laws that regulate fire arms for law-abiding purposes do not infringe the second amendment.

Upholding the Constitution is hardly activist.

Restrictions are only allowed if they can be justified with a good reason. Restricting people's rights for no reason isn't allowed.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

So much for the good guy with the gun bollocks, he got shot the same as everyone else.

Let me know when the UK disarms all of their firearms officers because their guns are useless.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
Oh yeah? Ask oralloy. Hee hhas repeatedly asserted that his interpretation of the 2nd which did not even exist before 2006 outoweighs all the others.
Your calendar is off by a little bit. It has existed for 2600 years.

what is wrong with your calendar?

when did the 2nd amendment come into force?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

what is wrong with your calendar?

Nothing. The right of a free man to carry arms has existed for some 2600 years.

ehBeth wrote:

when did the 2nd amendment come into force?

December 15, 1791.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

fake history much? You have it exactly backward.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

No. Baldimo has it right. The right of individuals to carry arms has been recognized for thousands of years. The nonsense about "the right applying only to militiamen" is a recent fabrication by leftist freedom haters.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

How is a document that was and is intended to limit the power of the Federal govt and allow for maximum individual freedom, meant to grow with the nation? It seems our Constitution is no longer used to limit govt but to grant it permission to limit our liberty.

Couldn't find an applause moji.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

... It was intended to provide a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state. The militia has, throughout our history, shown itself not worth the powder needed to blow it to hell. In Heller, even this far right-wing, activist court held that laws that regulate fire arms for law-abiding purposes do not infringe the second amendment.

You are just flat out wrong here.The 2nd amendment does not provide a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state. Where do you come up with this ****. You even posted about it earlier.

The second has nothing to do with militia's other than stating that BECAUSE of the Militia, the rights of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. Not the rights of the militia, or people in the militia. the PEOPLE of America.

1 Reply

They live among us.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

You are just flat out wrong here.The 2nd amendment does not provide a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state. Where do you come up with this ****. You even posted about it earlier.

Quote:

"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."

Did you decide that one can just ditch the first clause?

Quote:

The second has nothing to do with militia's other than stating that BECAUSE of the Militia, the rights of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. Not the rights of the militia, or people in the militia. the PEOPLE of America.

As I have already pointed out, in Heller, the decision that gun nuts jerk off about, the Court cited The United States versus Miller and stated that gun control legislation which defines weapons which law-abiding citizens may bear do not infringe the second amendment. Keep your nasty personal remarks to yourself.

2 Replies

Jeezis, setanta. Can't you read? The 2nd amendment does not even mention militias. Quote: "Thou shalt murder with high capacity guns daily" is the exact language.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Oh please Set. Miller upheld the NFA and a "ban" on automatic and/or short barreled guns. Don't you find it interesting that here in America we can still visit some states and shoot automatic guns? That's because the Federal Govt has to stick to the 2nd Amendment.

You quote it and still get it wrong.

"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."

Where does that say anything about providing a militia, well regulated or otherwise? It says that a Militia is necessary because the US, at that time, could not have a standing army. It then goes on to say that because we need a militia, the people need to be armed.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Jeezis, setanta. Can't you read? The 2nd amendment does not even mention militias. Quote: "Thou shalt murder with high capacity guns daily" is the exact language.

If you have nothing to add, piss off.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Just helping illustrate how ridiculous gun nut arguments are. If you don't like it you can shove it where your head usually is in these matters.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

One of the best reasons to vote for Republicans is, they will protect us from people who think that freedom and civil rights are ridiculous.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Did you decide that one can just ditch the first clause?

The Second Amendment certainly protects militiamen from being disarmed (which is why Congress does not have the authority to prevent militiamen from having any infantry weapon that they want).

However, it does not provide the militia. The militia was already provided by the Constitution -- Article One Section Eight I believe (although I didn't look it up to double check).

Setanta wrote:

As I have already pointed out, in Heller, the decision that gun nuts jerk off about, the Court cited The United States versus Miller and stated that gun control legislation which defines weapons which law-abiding citizens may bear do not infringe the second amendment.

Restrictions are only allowed if they can be justified with a good reason. The government is not permitted to impose unjustifiable restrictions on what kind of gun people can have.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Shame that they are not interested in protecting people in the US from the white guys who want to shoot them.

_

Another group of dead US citizens? who cares <shrug>

That's definitely how Republicans and right-of-centre posters seem to feel.

3 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know