18
   

WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

 
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 08:45 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

The constitution does not protect your right to carry guns whenever you go about in public. Those are statutory rights, and vary from state to state. The constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms, as a member of a well-regulated militia. That means Congress and the states have the right to regulate firearms. The fraudulent claims which are most common in the firearms debate in this country come from the gun nuts.


I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I say that it is because a militia exists, the rights of the people of the US to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

It's doesn't say that the rights of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 09:30 am
@McGentrix,
BUT IT STATES clearly that the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms is in the service of maintaining a well -regulated militia.
Therefore
The state is also a protected party under 2nd Amendment.
Thats where the Oralloys and the gun nutz get it wrong
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 09:49 am
@farmerman,
Emphasis on 'well regulated.'
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 09:58 am
@edgarblythe,
well, ever since the NRA implanted that probe into Reagans head and the 2nd Amendment began to morph into a party member, weve had an entirely new generation of thinking based on some bogus "Originalism"

Im afraid that because of theUSSC's Heller decision, weve got the additional complexity of Originalism built into the 2nd Amendment and the possibility of reinstating these portions of the existing firearms LAw.

Heller may be the law now, but that doesnt mean its right. (any more than slavery was once the law).
I said many times that this BS is going to be generational.

Or else:
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 10:17 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

BUT IT STATES clearly that the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms is in the service of maintaining a well -regulated militia.
Therefore
The state is also a protected party under 2nd Amendment.
Thats where the Oralloys and the gun nutz get it wrong


Can't be too clear if you are misunderstanding it.

"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 it say that people have to be in the militia? It says that BECAUSE there is a need for a well regulated militia, the right of the PEOPLE, not the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's pretty clear, otherwise they would have stated that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When you say "The state is also a protected party" can you elaborate what you mean? My first impression is the 50 states, but re-reading you may mean federal govt.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:20 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The constitution does not protect your right to carry guns whenever you go about in public. Those are statutory rights, and vary from state to state.

That is incorrect. The right to carry guns when we go about in public comes from English Common Law. As such, the Ninth Amendment protects that right as part of the Constitution.


Setanta wrote:
The constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms, as a member of a well-regulated militia. That means Congress and the states have the right to regulate firearms.

Actually, the point of the Second Amendment regarding the militia is to limit the government from regulating the militia's firearms.

A certain degree of regulation would pass muster with the Second Amendment, but any regulations that prevented the militia from having a full array of effective modern military arms would violate the Second Amendment.


Setanta wrote:
Your logic is skewed, too. If, as you claim, the second amendment "trumps all," then there is no reason to oppose NIH collection and analysis of gun death data.

We really don't need a reason. We denied the government permission to do such studies, and that's the end of the matter.


Setanta wrote:
Thinking is hard.

I disagree. I can't remember the last time I had an actual challenge. But then I'm atypical.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:26 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I think Oralloy is in total denial on the common sense of your point.

In my experience, the term "common sense" is used as a means of urging people to reject facts and logic, and usually for the purposes of generating support for civil rights violations.

As such, I am more than happy to reject anything labeled as common sense.


farmerman wrote:
I am convinced that his definition of gun rights is to be armed against a rogue government.

How do you explain the fact that I repeatedly debunk such claims?


farmerman wrote:
Oy Gvelt,

Who?


farmerman wrote:
I think he needs a Dr Ruth.

Is that a candy bar?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:35 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
BUT IT STATES clearly that the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms is in the service of maintaining a well -regulated militia.
Therefore
The state is also a protected party under 2nd Amendment.
Thats where the Oralloys and the gun nutz get it wrong

Nothing wrong on my part.

And actually it doesn't state that. The two parts of the Second Amendment are independent of each other.

The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always have a militia in good order, so that it is on hand to help the government enforce the law.

The second half of the Second Amendment prohibits the government from disarming or "under arming" the militia, in order to ensure that the militia has the weapons that it needs to do its job.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:41 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Emphasis on 'well regulated.'

The term "well regulated" was used to refer to a militia that had trained to the degree that it fought as a single coherent unit, as opposed to fighting as a bunch of unorganized individuals.

There is no particular emphasis that I am aware of, although I agree that the Framers desired that the militia be an effective fighting force.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:45 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
well, ever since the NRA implanted that probe into Reagans head and the 2nd Amendment began to morph into a party member, weve had an entirely new generation of thinking based on some bogus "Originalism"

Nothing bogus about protecting our Constitutional rights.


farmerman wrote:
Heller may be the law now, but that doesnt mean its right. (any more than slavery was once the law).

Freedom is ALWAYS right.


farmerman wrote:
I said many times that this BS is going to be generational.

America is going to remain a free country until the end of time.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 11:51 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Where does it say that people have to be in the militia?

It doesn't expressly say it, but it is kind of a given that the right of the militia to have modern military arms like machineguns, grenades/grenade launchers, anti-tank bazookas, and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, is something that applies only to people in the militia.

The general populace only has the right to carry guns that are suitable for self defense.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 12:07 pm
@McGentrix,
"The gun nutz get it wrong." That's you!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 12:33 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

farmerman wrote:
BUT IT STATES clearly that the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms is in the service of maintaining a well -regulated militia.
Therefore
The state is also a protected party under 2nd Amendment.
Thats where the Oralloys and the gun nutz get it wrong

Nothing wrong on my part.

And actually it doesn't state that. The two parts of the Second Amendment are independent of each other.

The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always have a militia in good order, so that it is on hand to help the government enforce the law.

The second half of the Second Amendment prohibits the government from disarming or "under arming" the militia, in order to ensure that the militia has the weapons that it needs to do its job.


See? It's so clear all three of us read it differently.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 01:10 pm
@McGentrix,
if they are independent phrases, I surmise that the first one should exist on its own?
As I said, Heller may be the law but that doesnt mean its right.

You may feel the same about Row v Wade
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 01:11 pm
@farmerman,
Was "Row" intentional? LOL
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 01:12 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
America is going to remain a free country until the end of time.
and a certain amount of gun sense by law, will make sure that it goes back that way. "Free" does not meananarchy(well maybe in your head).
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 02:19 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
if they are independent phrases, I surmise that the first one should exist on its own?

The Framers liked to consolidate.


farmerman wrote:
As I said, Heller may be the law but that doesnt mean its right.

Protecting civil rights is ALWAYS right.


farmerman wrote:
You may feel the same about Row v Wade

The old ruling that was superseded by PP v Casey?

I tend not to worry about it, although it would be nice to give equality to men.

It is likely that PP v Casey will soon be overturned. Pro-lifers are a big part of the Republican base, and the Republicans will soon have a bunch more conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

However, as soon as the Court finishes stomping on abortion, they will turn their attention to overturning all those unconstitutional gun laws.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 02:23 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
and a certain amount of gun sense by law, will make sure that it goes back that way.

Thanks to the NRA, America is still mostly free, and there is no need to "return" to freedom.

Some gun laws will have to be struck down however.


farmerman wrote:
"Free" does not meananarchy(well maybe in your head).

Free means that you don't get to go around violating everyone's civil rights.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 02:57 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Free means that you don't get to go around violating everyone's civil rights.
So that you can violate MY civil rights with a gun? You are sounding a little scary. Like that guy in Upstate PA who, although told not to, would wear a side arm tothe Township Supervisors meetings. Finally when ordered to keep it out of meetings, he went postal and murdered several people on meeting night .
Democracy In Action? Freedom to kill?

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 03:25 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
BUT IT STATES clearly that the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms is in the service of maintaining a well -regulated militia.
Therefore
The state is also a protected party under 2nd Amendment.
Thats where the Oralloys and the gun nutz get it wrong
Well, the SCOTUS disagreed with you. On this occasion, they got the original intent of the framers correct.

Their thinking (and mine) was this:

At that point in time the people involved in writing the constitution were very focused on the tyranny of the government of England they had just fought and escaped from. It was foremost in their minds that a central government would never again have such power over the people.

They were not satisfied that the body of the Constitution sufficiently protected individual rights so they added those first 10 amendments to make it doubly clear that Government was not to violate those inalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence.

Now ask yourself this question: Why in hell would the people that were so concerned with Government violating the rights of individuals put near the top of those 10 amendments, the exclusive rights to keep and bare arms to the 'monster' of government they so feared?

And yes farmerman, I've read the ******* decision.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 03:13:51