Jump to content
TrumpBGoneSoon

A Serious Discussion about Gun Violence.

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

1. What is the express purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution?s c

The maintenance of a well-organized militia for national defense. It says so right in the Amendment.

Of course, when the Bill of  Rights was implemented (not by a vote of the people, by the way), it is clear that the Federal government had no way of confiscating anyone's guns. The British tried to d this, failed to do it well enough to prevent the success of the Revolution (with help from the French Navy), and it pissed everyone off.

Those are the  philosophical and pragmatic reason for the second amendment.

The Supreme Court has chosen to misinterpret the words, quite obviously.

 

"Shall not be infringed" is what it says.

 

For the People... to protect themselves ostensibly from a standing Federal Army.

 

Military arms?

 

You bet.

 

How else do you fight a well-regulated Federal Army?

 

With a well-regulated Militia... of one or more armed citizens.

 

 

Quote

1. What is the express purpose of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution?

To allow the free circulation of ideas among the citizens, of course.

2. Is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater Political Free Speech?

No, yelling FIRE! is not a political statement. In addition, it would cause panic and unnecessary injury to life and limb and should therefore not be permitted.

 

Correct... sort of.

 

It is so that The People are free to discuss and redress their Government.

 

 

The First Amendment has been curtailed - Outside of its Constitutional Guarantee to the People.

 

 

The 1st Amendment says "shall make no Law."

 

The 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not infringe," a much higher standard of prohibition.

 

How do you curtail the Right of Citizens to Military arms... without infringing on that Right?

 

That is where, and only were, your solution lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Devil said:

 

"Shall not be infringed" is what it says.

 

For the People... to protect themselves ostensibly from a standing Federal Army.

 

Military arms?

 

You bet.

 

How else do you fight a well-regulated Federal Army?

 

With a well-regulated Militia... of one or more armed citizens.

 

 

Correct.

 

The First Amendment has been curtailed - Out Side of its Constitutional Guarantee to the People.

 

The 1st Amendment says "shall make no law"

Shall make no law means that the press may not be legally muzzled.

 

The 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not infringe," a much higher standard of prohibition.

FOR the exclusive purpose of insuring that there are well organized militias for the purpose of national defense. You are not allowed to quote half the amendment.

 

 

How do you curtail the Right of Citizens to Military arms... without infringing on that Right?

By requiring everyone who wishes to own a gun to me a member of a well organized militia, of course. You want a gun? Joint the militia and train with it. You want a personal arsenal, make your extra weapons available to your local militia. Sorry, you do NOT have the right to own a bazooka, a howitzer or a tank. You cannot possess your own armed Apache helicopter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

The 1st Amendment says "shall make no law"

Shall make no law means that the press may not be legally muzzled.

 

1A:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

The Bill of Rights is a Contract with the People, to protect them from the Government.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

The 2nd Amendment says, "Shall not infringe," a much higher standard of prohibition.

 

FOR the exclusive purpose of insuring that there are well organized militias for the purpose of national defense. You are not allowed to quote half the amendment.

 

And you are not allowed to make things up as you go.

 

Where does it say "for the purpose of national defense?"

 

2A:

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.

 

The Bill of Rights is a Contract with the People, to protect them from the Government.

 

A militia is a necessity - it is how the People defend themselves against a Government.

 

So the Government is prohibited from infringing on the People's Right to have Military arms, so that they are able to form those militias if necessary.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

How do you curtail the Right of Citizens to Military arms... without infringing on that Right?

 

By requiring everyone who wishes to own a gun to me a member of a well organized militia, of course. You want a gun? Joint the militia and train with it. You want a personal arsenal, make your extra weapons available to your local militia. Sorry, you do NOT have the right to own a bazooka, a howitzer or a tank. You cannot possess your own armed Apache helicopter.

 

Again, you are making things up as you go.

 

Where does it say in the Bill of Rights, "Sorry, you do NOT have the right to own a bazooka, a howitzer or a tank. You cannot possess your own armed Apache helicopter?"

 

And Force? Is Fascist, the Antithesis of the Bill of Rights.

 

As a Citizen, I will arm myself, train and regulate myself, and join a militia of one or more, at the time and place of My choosing... not the Government. That is My Right.

 

"shall not Infringe"

 

Liberty - sucks for Fascists and Communists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go try to buy yourself an armed Apache helicopter or a bazooka, see how far you get.Trump's government will prevent this just as Obama's would have.

 

I doubt that any respectable militia would deem you too effing stupid and bigoted to defend this nation.You are filled with hatred for your fellow citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

Go try to buy yourself an armed Apache helicopter or a bazooka, see how far you get.Trump's government will prevent this just as Obama's would have.

 

I doubt that any respectable militia would deem you too effing stupid and bigoted to defend this nation.You are filled with hatred for your fellow citizens.

 

So you lost.

 

You often do, being a subversive Academic Communist malcontent and all.

 

 

But that doesn't change the Constitution, or my Rights within it, does it?

 

No.

 

It just makes you impotent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

 Hawaii has fewer guns per capita.

It is very hard to import a gun into Hawaii, as it is an island.

Hawaii is 49th in gun deaths in the USA.

 

If you want to own a gun, you should be an active member of a "well-organized militia".

 

LMFAO The Supreme Court has ruled that everyday American Citizens have the right to bear arms... you don't like it GTFO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, How do you curtail the People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms without violating them... and still solve the Problems of our Society today?

 

How do we deal with Drunk Driving Automobiles?

 

We regulate Bad Behavior... not Things.

 

If we had Zero tolerance on behavior, both Firearms AND Vehicular homicides would drop like a rock.

 

But we don't, because you Liberals are more compassionate toward the criminals than to the victims.

 

quote-gun-control-the-theory-that-a-woma

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2017-08-28/so-about-well-regulated-militia-part-constitution

 

The language of the Second Amendment, which assures the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, is simultaneously explicit and opaque.

“The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms,” says Jesse Choper, a UC Berkeley Law professor emeritus and the former Berkeley Law dean. “But really, that’s the beginning point of the conversation. As is true with most of the Bill of Rights, the intent is not totally clear, and in fact, the language in the Second Amendment is particularly confusing.”

That confusion, of course, is largely due to this line: “…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.”

For decades, legal scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun control issue have differed over the intended meaning of the Founding Fathers. Did they mean that only those citizens who are organized into official militias by local or regional jurisdictions have the right to bear arms? Or that anyone can keep arms because they might eventually join a “well-regulated” militia?  And what about the storage of the arms themselves? Can citizens keep them in their homes, or only in armories that supply the cited well-regulated militias? Further, even assuming that every law-abiding citizen can own firearms, does that right extend to locked-and-loaded open carry in public?

Choper observes the U.S. Supreme Court tacked the issue in the 2008 landmark case, District of Columbia v Heller, and that the justices’ ruling defines basic gun rights today. The majority opinion for that case was written by the late Antonin Scalia, a fervent Constitutional “originalist” and ardent gun enthusiast.

“The interesting thing about District of Columbia v Heller is that Scalia had to accommodate the other four justices who ultimately sided with him, ” Choper says. “As a consequence, it provides a very limited interpretation of the Second Amendment. It stipulates that a person has the right to own a gun to protect himself or herself, family, and property. That’s it. The decision does not imply the right to carry a weapon in public, including public buildings.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Devil said:

 

 

But we don't, because you Liberals are more compassionate toward the criminals than to the victims.

 

 

 

I could make the same argument about conservatives after the shooting of Sandy Hook.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say the correct interpretation was to encourage those with arms to enroll in a local militia, period.

Of course, the pragmatic reason was that the Feds had no possible way of confiscating arms. Many local people charged with this task would  have refused to obey, or would have claimed they did when they did nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

I could make the same argument about conservatives after the shooting of Sandy Hook.  

And you would be accurate in doing so.

The purpose of the Second   Amendment was not to encourage vigilantism. 

Vigilantism would be a "poorly regulated militia" or an "ad hoc unregulated militia" or perhaps just an armed  lynch mob.

 

I would prefer to rely on the police than on some bigoted Klansman like Blued Evil to defend me from criminals. Who wouldn't?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XavierOnassis said:

And you would be accurate in doing so.

The purpose of the Second   Amendment was not to encourage vigilantism. 

Vigilantism would be a "poorly regulated militia" or an "ad hoc unregulated militia" or perhaps just an armed  lynch mob.

 

Even Scalia thought the 2nd Amendment was for defense only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2017-08-28/so-about-well-regulated-militia-part-constitution

 

The language of the Second Amendment, which assures the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, is simultaneously explicit and opaque.

“The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms,” says Jesse Choper, a UC Berkeley Law professor emeritus and the former Berkeley Law dean. “But really, that’s the beginning point of the conversation. As is true with most of the Bill of Rights, the intent is not totally clear, and in fact, the language in the Second Amendment is particularly confusing.”

That confusion, of course, is largely due to this line: “…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.”

For decades, legal scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun control issue have differed over the intended meaning of the Founding Fathers. Did they mean that only those citizens who are organized into official militias by local or regional jurisdictions have the right to bear arms? Or that anyone can keep arms because they might eventually join a “well-regulated” militia?  And what about the storage of the arms themselves? Can citizens keep them in their homes, or only in armories that supply the cited well-regulated militias? Further, even assuming that every law-abiding citizen can own firearms, does that right extend to locked-and-loaded open carry in public?

Choper observes the U.S. Supreme Court tacked the issue in the 2008 landmark case, District of Columbia v Heller, and that the justices’ ruling defines basic gun rights today. The majority opinion for that case was written by the late Antonin Scalia, a fervent Constitutional “originalist” and ardent gun enthusiast.

“The interesting thing about District of Columbia v Heller is that Scalia had to accommodate the other four justices who ultimately sided with him, ” Choper says. “As a consequence, it provides a very limited interpretation of the Second Amendment. It stipulates that a person has the right to own a gun to protect himself or herself, family, and property. That’s it. The decision does not imply the right to carry a weapon in public, including public buildings.”

 

So, even though the entire Bill of Rights is a Contract for the protection of the People from their Government, as "shall nots" to that Government...

 

The Second most important "Shall not," after the Right to call out that Government... is not to prohibit that government from interfering with to People's Right to form militias and shoot that Government... but to protect property from burglars.

 

Academic Communist malcontents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

I could make the same argument about conservatives after the shooting of Sandy Hook.  

 

Emotional arguments - don't bring children back.

 

Hitler gassed lots of children. Mao killed millions.

 

A well armed Free State - prevents those things from happening... but it does not stop all pain and suffering.

 

That is an adolescent utopian ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Even Scalia thought the 2nd Amendment was for defense only.

 

It is.

 

Against all enemies, Foreign or Domestic.

 

...including the Government.

 

 

You don't have the Right to shoot up a school.

 

...but you have the Right to defend one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Emotional arguments - don't bring children back.

 

Hitler gassed lots of children. Mao killed millions.

 

A well armed Free State - prevents those things from happening... but it does not stop all pain and suffering.

 

That is an adolescent utopian ideal.

So the response is people will die and there's nothing we could do because we want guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrumpBGoneSoon, sorry you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment, that is fine with me...

But don't you dare trample on my rights to bear arms... you will get hurt!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

So the response is people will die and there's nothing we could do because we want guns?

 

Emotional Arguments - here is another one:

 

Mass Murdering Automobiles

Multiple Casualties And Injuries After Van Attack In Germany

Barcelona - At least 13 Dead/100 Injured After Van Plows into Crowd

Automobile Mass-murders 6, wounds 21 in van rampage on London Bridge

Automobile Mass-murders 4, Wounds 44 in Stillwater, Okla.

Automobile Mass-murders 12, Wounds 48 in Berlin, Germany.

 

 

 


- They are registered.

- They are licensed.

- They are regulated by the Government.

- Owners are trained.

- Owners are licensed.

- Owners are regulated by the Government.

 

...and still, automobiles commit mass murder.

 

30,000 Americans this Year...

 

 

By far the most common type of injury accident involving children are those that also involve motor vehicle collisions. According to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), nearly 250,000 children are injured every year in car accidents.

 

This means that on any given day nearly 700 children are harmed due to accidents on our roadways. Of the 250,000 kids injured each year, approximately 2,000 die from their injuries. Children make up about 5% of total fatalities due to car accidents. In fact, for children between the ages of 2 and 14, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death...

 

36499D2900000578-3691019-image-a-54_1468

 

- The leading cause of death among young people ages 15-29, and the second leading cause of death worldwide among young people ages 5-14.

 

- Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year.

 

 

So, there is only one option left to guarantee the safety and protection of Citizens...

 

Automobile confiscation.

 

Your Government will still have them... but you will not.

 

You don't really need one, anyway, car-nuts... you can walk or ride a bicycle...

Billions of people on this planet do every day. Or use public transportation.

 

Because, you don't have one of THESE for your car, do you?

Second-Amendment--620x358.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Duck615 said:

TrumpBGoneSoon, sorry you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment, that is fine with me...

But don't you dare trample on my rights to bear arms... you will get hurt!!

I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment was meant to get children killed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Emotional Arguments - here is another one:

 

Mass Murdering Automobiles

Multiple Casualties And Injuries After Van Attack In Germany

Barcelona - At least 13 Dead/100 Injured After Van Plows into Crowd

Automobile Mass-murders 6, wounds 21 in van rampage on London Bridge

Automobile Mass-murders 4, Wounds 44 in Stillwater, Okla.

Automobile Mass-murders 12, Wounds 48 in Berlin, Germany.

 

 

 


- They are registered.

- They are licensed.

- They are regulated by the Government.

- Owners are trained.

- Owners are licensed.

- Owners are regulated by the Government.

 

...and still, automobiles commit mass murder.

 

30,000 Americans this Year...

 

 

By far the most common type of injury accident involving children are those that also involve motor vehicle collisions. According to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), nearly 250,000 children are injured every year in car accidents.

 

This means that on any given day nearly 700 children are harmed due to accidents on our roadways. Of the 250,000 kids injured each year, approximately 2,000 die from their injuries. Children make up about 5% of total fatalities due to car accidents. In fact, for children between the ages of 2 and 14, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death...

 

36499D2900000578-3691019-image-a-54_1468

 

- The leading cause of death among young people ages 15-29, and the second leading cause of death worldwide among young people ages 5-14.

 

- Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year.

 

 

So, there is only one option left to guarantee the safety and protection of Citizens...

 

Automobile confiscation.

 

Your Government will still have them... but you will not.

 

You don't really need one, anyway, car-nuts... you can walk or ride a bicycle...

Billions of people on this planet do every day. Or use public transportation.

 

Because, you don't have one of THESE for your car, do you?

Second-Amendment--620x358.jpg

 

Car are more regulated than guns and that saves lives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment was meant to get children killed.  

People kill people... 

You are just proving my point that liberals are using children to advance their agenda!!!

Let's deal with the root cause of these mass school shootings... bullying!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Car are more regulated than guns and that saves lives.  

 

Read the post.

 

Even regulated by the Government, they are mass-murdering monsters.

 

And you have 0.0 Constitutional Rights to one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment was meant to get children killed.  

 

Indeed!

Knowing that racist bigots like Blued Evil are running about armed does not make me feel safer. Quite the opposite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Duck615 said:

People kill people... 

You are just proving my point that liberals are using children to advance their agenda!!!

Let's deal with the root cause of these mass school shootings... bullying!!

The fact that guns are plentiful isn't helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

The fact that guns are plentiful isn't helping.

Sorry you don't like the 2nd Amendment!!!

But don't trample on someone's rights because you are offended by it!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...