ugh:

during the various state Constitutional Conventions. Many debates and various versions of the bill of rights.

New York, Massachusettes, New Hampshire, Virginia......

are the biggest fraud I have seen in my lifetime. Just my subjective point of view.

British were a constant threat. Now we have a standing army and no militia, so that right is totally distorted.

as long as they go back to the arms that were around during the time of the founding of our country. Not that people can't be killed by them but we would not be seeing mass murders perpetrated by individuals. If these nuts want to drag around a musket or put a flintlock pistol in their waistband I say have at it. It would take 20+ armed men with those ancient weapons to do the damage done by one lone nutcase.

The gun nut loves a good false equivalency as much as he likes squeezing off rounds at the firing range with the rest of the gun nuts.

BTW, how many people has a printing press killed this year?

Just because you say it is "false equivalency" does not make it so.

I was merely pointing and laughing at the tortured logic of a gun nut.

But I'll be your Huckleberry.

My answer: No.

Now, tell me again how many people the printing press has killed this year?

But you know that. I don't know how many people the printing press has killed this year. I suspect it is far lower than the number killed by drunk drivers. So by that logic we should ban alcohol. Right?

Same as the gun nut Big Mac-trans fat false equivalency.

Same as the gun nut cigarette false equivalency.

Same as the gun nut corn syrup false equivalency.

Believe me, I've heard them all, gun nut.

But seem you never go any further I suspect you don't know what they mean.

"But seem you never go any further"

Speaking of meanings, what in the fuck does that mean exactly, gun nut?

Just saying something does not impress anybody unless you have an empty head. Most people try and make an argument for their position. But you don't. You just state something and expect that people will believe it. Now you can go back to juvenile insults in 3..2..1..

this has nothing to do with anything!

to the technology of the 1700s. If that is acceptable legal logic then it would apply to the 1st. But it is nonsense and would only occur on the internet -- not in any serious discussion.

I could not understand it.

printing presses are not guns.

printing presses <> guns.

printing presses don't deprive anybody of their right to live.

The Second Amendment grants authority to regulate the militia, which is what is supposed to keep and bear arms. That's a little different than "Congress shall make no law...".

Maybe someone will teach you how to read the Constitution. No one, on either side, has your position.

his position is that you used a false whateverthefuck

you also used the wrong amendment

you also said that nobody believes what he said. but i do. he said you didn't make sense

And you were critical of me on grammar! LOL

Then again, what the fuck does a Chief Justice of the SCOTUS know about the Constitution?

The most amazing things gets posted here. Since Burger was a genius I suppose you support all of his decisions. Or is it just a quote picked out here and there. Roberts is Chief Justice now. Do you support all of his opinions?

Try reading the 2nd Amendment sometime without the blinders on.

"A well-regulated militia (comma) being necessary to the security of a free state (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (COMMA) shall not be infringed."

I have a feeling a few more people are going to be coming around to my viewpoint.

Well, unless you think this doesn't really mean what it says:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Good luck with that.

That is why I questioned the poster.

he was talking about the 2nd amendment and how it was written when we had muskets. he was voicing his opinion.

you brought up the 1st. how are they related?

i don't really care so don't answer please.

People could speak 300 years ago, just as they do now. They could express themselves, just as they do now. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to a network TV program, nor the right to the internet.

The difference is that expression isn't a thing, like a weapon is. There's the false equivilancy.

Are you saying the 1st would not apply to tv or the internet? The poster I originally replied said the 2nd only applied to the technology of weapons in the 1700s. Arms are specifically mentioned in the 2nd just as the press is specifically mentioned in the 1st. If the founders only wanted the amendments to apply to what was around and available at the time then the same would apply to all amendments. But as I have repeatedly said this is a discussion which only would take place on the internet. Nobody serious in the debate holds the view the 2nd just applies to 1700s weapons. Please find any elected liberal/progressive that holds that view.

that comparing the 1st and 2nd is apples-to-oranges. The act of expression and what is protected hasn't fundamentally changed in centuries, while firearms, being a physical item/thing (or, rather, a set of things), is dramatically different now than it was.

If you are going to persist in that argument please find either an elected progressive/liberal who holds that view or a Constitutional law expert, liberal or otherwise, who holds it. Don't you find it strange the only place you can find it is on an internet discussion board by anonymous posters?

A well-polished tactic of Delicate Flowers.

However neither things are true of me or my post. You obviously don't know much about me if you think i am anti-gun-control. My statement on the difference between the 1st and 2nd is a case *for* being able to restrict classes of weapons.

Sigh.

There is no reason a private citizen needs semi-automatic weapons for defense. Revolvers, bolt-action longarms, and pump/lever shotguns are the most needed. Semi-automatics for competetive shooting can can kept securely at ranges.

The post you responded to (#154) was a response to the Delicate Flower's post (#148), not to one of yours.

You are the champ. Nobody will ever take it away from you.

Catching a poster moving the goalpost is now "name calling".

I see.

How many people died from knifes? How many died from cars?

Do you actually believe banning a few rifles is going to slow down the insane shooters? LMAO!!!!!

Banning automatic assalt weapons and clips of 30-100 rounds or more will stop some of these cretins. Not all. If it stops one I'll be happy with that. I think most here would agree with me.

Not every gun death committed is by an insane person.

The first amendment says "freedom of the press" not freedom of the printing press. Where did you get that one?

But the second amendment only applied to militias. The second amendment says people, not person. It also says the security of a free state, not a free person.

Have you read the posts I responded to? They are trying to suggest the 2nd is limited to the technology of the weapons available at the time of the writing of the 2nd. If that nonsense is true then the 1st is also limited to the technology of the press of that time. It is all nonsense and something you only would see on a internet board -- not in any serious discussion.

Regards to your interpretation of the 2nd, Lawrence Tribe, a liberal with more bona fides than most on this board, and one of Obama's professors at Harvard Law School, disagrees with your "collective" view. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The grammar police will be on you soon!

I'm not going to. Let's just say we are even in that respect. Or do you want me to see your law professor and raise you a chief justice?

I did read the posts you responded to, none made the stretch yours did. What does a printing press have to do with free speech and the press? No one is arguing about how guns are manufactured, we are arguing about the type of guns and how they are used. Why are you bringing up how newspapers and books are made?

What about the right to peacefully assemble in a church, a theater, a school, or a street corner, without fear of being shot? Or do you agree with LaPierre that we should arm ourselves?

Why don't you let us petition the government about our grievances and let the majority decide?

Do you still want to talk about the first amendment?

#5 I am more than willing to give them the right to bear arms.........as long as they go back to the arms that were around during the time of the founding of our country. Not that people can't be killed by them but we would not be seeing mass murders perpetrated by individuals. If these nuts want to drag around a musket or put a flintlock pistol in their waistband I say have at it.

If you think the 2nd A only applies to the weapon technology of the time then that applies to the rest of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. Do you agree with that post or not?

I am not aware I am stopping anyone from "petition the government about our grievances and let the majority decide". The majority do not want to ban weapons so let's have a vote if that is what you wish.

with the right to shoot him in the face?

The Constitution was written as an adjustable document. The writers knew shit was going to come up that they couldn't even imagine so they made sure we could fix it if needed.

I don't agree with the idea that only 18th century weapons should be allowed but the 2nd amendment has room to adjust for a rule that was written when it took forever to load a single shot into a weapon.

My argument is always the same. Do you believe that I should be allowed to own a Thermonuclear device? If you do you are a lunatic. If you don't then you and I agree that there needs to be some form of arms control. The debate should be on where the line is drawn, not whether or not there needs to be a line.

i think the first line goes between federal and state- if you want to have a certain gun beyond 2 pistols and a rifle, get a federal license

3 guns holding 20 bullets total. only one semi. no gun holds over 8 bullets. that's state level

At least I have not been certified as such so far. So no I don't favor people having nuclear weapons but I don't think that has been much of an issue. Your "asshole and shooting someone in the face" is a strawman. So you knocked it down as anyone could. I am a civil rights person and one of those rights is in the 2nd. It is part of the Bill of Rights. We currently have 20,000 federal and state gun laws. So far I have not see any new law proposals which would have affected Sandy Hook.

Hence it's Infringed upon.

A small list:

You can not Yell fire in a crowded Theater. (Free speech, 1st Amendment Why not?)

You can not Commit slander or Libel (Free speech, and/or Press 1st Amendment Why not?)

In most places in the United States you can not protest without a permit (Right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, 1st Amendment infringement, how can this stand!?! )

You can not commit Human Sacrifice legally, even if your religion requires it. ( prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

You can not legally practice every aspect of Sharīʿah law. ( prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

You can not legally practice many of the 'laws' in the old testament that both Christians and Jews have in their Bibles, by such as stoning your children or killing your wife. Women being forced to marry their rapists, et al. ( prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

You can't have more then one wife, even if your Religion demands you too. ( Prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, 1st Amendment, Why can't you?)

The press isn't allowed sometimes into Disaster zones, is this fair? ( A violation to the 1st Amendment to infringe on the Freedom of the press)

The Press isn't allowed to post pictures of murdered people at a crime scene, or war ( A violation to the 1st Amendment to infringe on the Freedom of the press)

It all depends on how one interprets the law. Nothing in the Constitution is black and white, It's mostly gray, so why not the 2ed?


Do you consider these Reasonable restrictions? Or Ignorant infringements by a overly nanny state Government on rights by those who wish to partake in some of the above list? Some people (Not saying you personally, but many rabid supporters) view the Second Amendment like a fanatical religion, Why should the fanatics get to dictate policy for the rest of us, with ZERO sane legislation that's better for the Three Hundred million people who live here? Serious question.


Having said that, I support the people to own guns, I just think they should be regulated more then Sudafed or Driving.

sorry for the shorthand- kinda busy

i say anything over 3 guns or 20 bullets total is federal- license and insurance no gun holds more than 8 shots ONE semi allowed

two six shooters and a rifle
two 10 shot handguns
two 8 shot pistils and a rifle

zen.

The guy with the printing press love affair did not get the gist of what I was trying to say. As a former Marine and a combat veteran with a wide variety of guns, I only have one that could be considered an assault weapon. It is an old (collectible) Winchester M1 carbine from WW2 passed down to me by my grandfather. All my other guns are for hunting and target practice. They range from .22 LR to .308 and from 410 to 12 gauge in shotguns. Which, being from Maine is a common thing to have. I just don't like seeing some idiot walking around with a loaded Bushmaster strapped to their back, it makes me uncomfortable as to their intentions and need of doing so. There was just the other day an incident in Portland Maine where some gun nut was walking around on a hiking trail with an AR15 strapped to his back. These nuts are pushing the envelope and they don't even know it. I have a concealed carry permit but most times don't carry unless I was going on a road trip or camping out in my back 40. We still have rabid foxes, bears and coyotes in Maine. So a little protection is good in those situations. My point was that the second amendment did not foresee the armament that is readily available today, and if they want to "open carry" on the streets I have no problem if they want to drag around their flintlock. That still is how I feel no matter what the formerwhoeverheis thinks. He is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. They do get shrill though, don't they.

i don't know if there IS a word...

so would you have any problem with having to register the guns you have? i mean the bigger ones? just a small one time fee.
i just don't understand the selfishness of the whole gun zealot thing- which you obviously aren't.
it's like they need an F-1 racer to go to the grocery store, and don't want to be responsible enough to get a license.
which forces someone like you to look bad to a non-gun person.
thanks!

and the few I bought from private owners. When I was growing up it was not unusual to get a gun for Christmas or your birthday, so I am from a different era. However no one I knew back then would even dream of owning an Ak47 or an AR15 much less a Barrett .50 caliber. This gun along with the large capacity magazine guns like the Bushmaster has me the most concerned. One nut with a Barrett could conceivably take out most of a large city. If that city had large oil, chemical or volatile liquid tanks, it could easily be used to take down an airliner. It has an effective range of about one mile, and penetrating capabilities beyond your wildest imagination, with the right or should I say the wrong ammo in someones hands.

Do you also "give" people the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc... ?

I'm sure this has been repeated a million times here (at least I hope so) but the bill of rights doesn't "give" us any rights.

As though they didn't exist before the bill of rights.

I guess schools don't teach the Enlightenment these days. No Locke, Rousseau, or even Hobbes.

No, all one has to do is read the preamble to the Bill of Rights to disabuse themselves of that notion:

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Abuse of whose powers? The government. Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom? The government.

The Bill of Rights is not a "the people can-" document; it's a "the government can't" document.

rights are not for objects. you have the right to defend yourself. period. not own any fucking gun you want.
do you have a right to own your refrigerator to defend against food poisoning.
get real, please.
the government can't stop you from owning a gun.
but it can, has before, and is about to AGAIN, tell you what kind of gun you can own.

deal wih it

Wyoming. Arizona. Alaska.



Now, do you have something actually related to the topic we were discussing in the post you responded to, or are you going to continue to flail?

you jumped into someone's question with a bunch of mumbo jumbo BS

i called you on it thusly:
rights are not for objects. you have the right to defend yourself. period. not own any fucking gun you want.
do you have a right to own your refrigerator to defend against food poisoning.
get real, please.
the government can't stop you from owning a gun.
but it can, has before, and is about to AGAIN, tell you what kind of gun you can own.

deal with it

and go away. you have NO CHANCE

SCALIA wrote this, not me

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

That's a straw man of your own making. Feel free to burn it at your leisure.

Funny though, you seem to have missed the part mentioning what arms are protected- those "in common use, for lawful purposes".

A majority of today's arms, like handguns or "assault weapons" are "in common use, for lawful purposes".

The AR-15 and clones are the single best-selling rifle in the country. In common use? Check. Their use in crime? Minuscule. For lawful purposes? Check.

You've been hoist on your own petard.

last time i checked assault was against the law you fool

GIVE UP YOU ARE HOPELESS

I put it in quotes because it's a distinction without difference.

you lose

I can't make it any simpler than that.

*Every* right is limited. *No* right is unlimited.

You continue to flog that straw man all you like. You seem to be under the mistaken idea that if a right is limited in any way, that any restriction whatsoever is a-ok. Do time / place / manner restrictions on speech (held to be constitutional) mean that *any* restriction on speech is peachy-keen? Of course not, silly.

Derp.

Both Miller and Heller assert that the "arms" protected by the second amendment are those that are "in common use, for lawful purposes".

I demonstrated that "assault weapons" are both "in common use" and "for lawful purposes".

I honestly have to wonder if nobody has challenged you to back up your claims- this is just.. juvenile.

and i am right!

If all you're going to do is stamp your feet and complain, it does your argument no good.

you quoted 6 WORDS SO SHUT THE HELL UP YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL!!!

we are discussing whether the right is limited- it is, ask scalia

SCALIA wrote this, not me- my bold

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

if you weren't born with your silly f'in gun, it ain't your right. end of story

That guy LOVES to declare victory. It's a key thing. I've never seen any posts from him on any theme other than "guns are like gold-plated chocolate-covered unicorns". He loves to move goal posts, he loves to use red herrings, among many other rhetorical falsehoods.

Mainly he is here to waste the time of Liberals. His anger & emotion and doggedness in pursuing his agenda of defending his Precious is amazing, and must be a paid pursuit, if you know what I mean.

you seem to think your rights are more important than mine, i don't know, maybe its the gun

maybe they are paying your bills, i don't care.

nobody EVER gave you the right to own one, no matter what dumb-ass propaganda you believe or spread.

get it? its a privilege that many, many don't deserve. a normal gun is fine for the majority of people

don't you think its a bit odd the number of ar-15s and NRA members is nearly the same?

what does that tell you?

Hello Enlightenment! Rights are part of being human. Governments don't "give" rights out.

I seriously wonder what they're teaching in high school government classes these days.

did the magna frikkin' carta give you the right to your refrigerator?

wtf?

there is a difference between things that are objects and more intangible things like free speech or life.

one is an object, the other is not.

you get a gun. you DON'T get to decide what kind all by yourself. you are being selfish and spoiled.

stop it.

No, the magna carta didn't "give" me anything either.

Rights exist. Governments are organized to protect them..

Remember the passage, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"??

coat of arms as a public display. nt

it is black and shiny

I personally haven't read the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. But, it did occur to me
that perhaps the original intention of the phrase "right to bear arms" might have meant the right to carry the family flag publicly. (I doubt that such was the case.)

I believe that the fanatical fixation surrounding the gun culture has to do the the primitive instincts of all animals to acquire as much power and control as possible. That would be
a primary survival emotion. Firearms, to a certain extent, represent the simplest and most effective means of achieving instant ascendancy. Everywhere young humans look,they are seeing various representations of people "have the drop" on others by way of gun play.
We have all seen fictional depictions of thousands of deaths by gun.

For the young Americans, they are often unable to separate the conditions of fantasy shooting and real shooting. Some years ago, a news reporter interviewed ten young men on death row, asking each of them the same question,"what were you thinking during the moments you were shooting your victims?" They all gave very similar answers along the lines of "it was like a movie", "as though I was an actor", or "It didn't seem real."

All of those responses that clearly showed the disconnect between fantasy shooting and real shooting.

have you heard the song "i don't like mondays'?