Something I noticed about a lot of adamant anti-2nd amendment folks.

[Rich2018]

you are not objective in the least.

Silly really.

Peace

Psychological projection in lieu of anything resembling an argument.

 

[noonereal]

Psychological projection in lieu of anything resembling an argument.

If it is all you can do, it is all you can do. I will not hate you for it.
Peace brother.

 

[Rich2018]

If it is all you can do, it is all you can do. I will not hate you for it.
Peace brother.

Good, life is too short for hatred

But if you oppose someone's POV, it's a very poor response to just dismiss it with a simple comment

Debate is about reasoned argument, not mud slinging

Deuces.

 

[noonereal]

Good, life is too short for hatred

But if you oppose someone's POV, it's a very poor response to just dismiss it with a simple comment

Debate is about reasoned argument, not mud slinging

Deuces.

There is no debate here. This is a den of partisan misinformation.

peace

 

[Rich2018]

There is no debate here. This is a den of partisan misinformation.

peace

There is for people wishing to engage in it

What definitely isn't debate are dismissive one liners like you just produced.

 

[noonereal]

There is for people wishing to engage in it

What definitely isn't debate are dismissive one liners like you just produced.

Tell you what, prove me wrong. Link me to an actural debate here. 3 days running.

Thanks, I look forward to you submitting for my amusement. (that is what takes place here, persuading others to jump through hoops which after conquered are reset for further leaps on command.)

 

[Rich2018]

Tell you what, prove me wrong. Link me to an actural debate here. 3 days running.

Try reading a few threads, just because many, in this section, degenerate into tit-for-tat bickering, doesn't justify it in any way
You seem to disagree.

Thanks, I look forward to you submitting for my amusement. (that is what takes place here, persuading others to jump through hoops which after conquered are reset for further leaps on command.)

This forum doesn't exist for your amusement
Clearly you disagree about that too.

 

[Bum]

.

 

[Bum]

?

 

[Rich2018]

.

Replying to multiple posts with just a period is spamming.

 

[Bum]

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).

Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.



The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

In US v Cruikshank. 1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The decision recognized the right of two former slaves to keep a bear arms, two men who were not in the militia, would not have been allowed to be in the militia, in a state where the militia had been disbanded.

Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.


The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.


In 1982 the Senate published a bipartisan report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

In 1990 in US v Verdugo-Urquidez SCOTUS affirmed: "...it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."


The claim that Heller changed the interpretation of the right protected by the Second Amendment from a collective to an individual viewpoint simply has no merit.

 

[Bum]

He was illustrating for you how both his statements could be true. Remember? Your contention was both his statements couldn't be true, which you have perhaps forgotten in your manic frenzy to be last poster in every thread.

 

[Rich2018]

You can just "like" a post you know ?

 

[Bum]

He was illustrating for you how both his statements could be true. Remember? Your contention was both his statements couldn't be true, which you have perhaps forgotten in your manic frenzy to be last poster in every thread.

 

[Bum]

Replying to multiple posts with just a period is spamming.

You should report me.....really, report me to the staff.

 

[jamesrage]

Bitterly dishonest and truly stupid statements are why I tend to avoid the Gun Control subform. Like this one:



Any and all attempt to place any restriction on gun ownership and use is an infringement, he says. Even the fake-originalist righties groomed by the Heritage Foundation and planted on the court with McConnell's aid would laugh at that. Ah well.

As long as gun lovers don't feign indignance if this extremist absurdity ever turns enough people against gun ownership and owners that they really do successfully eliminate the 2nd.

The principle is simple. You can't tell everyone else (non-gun-lovers) to **** off while the shoe's on one foot, then beg for negotation and understanding if it ever ends up on the other. Or you can try, but you won't be listened too.....



For their own sake, gun lovers would do well to rethink the tactic of dishonestly pretending the 2nd Amendment was intended to grant the one absolute right, impervious to regulation of any sort.

I am sure if someone said they support waiting periods, insurance requirements, licenses/permits, and restrictions for religion, freedom of speech, petititon grievances to the government and peaceable assembly then they would be called anti-1st amendment. And before someone says well some states require permits to protest, the permit isn't to protest the permit is to use that space that you will be essentially denying others the use of. You can stand on a side walk all day and night with no permit and protest as long as you are not blocking other peoples use of that sidewalk.

 

[jamesrage]

Bullshit. What other rights do we have that are as unlimited as the 2nd?

I do not recall ever having to have a permit/license( IE permission from the government to exercise a right),background check waiting period, and insurance to go to church. Nor am I restricted on what religion I can practice. As long as I am standing on a sidewalk not blocking anyone's way I can protest without a permit/license, background check, insurance, and waiting period, Nor I am not restricted about what I can protest about.

 

[Daddyo]

Because most people in the USA don't have a gun, yet consider themselves free (though the J6 riot and Virginia gun rally may have stoked some doubts)
And because no other Westernized democracy grants a right to have a gun, and guess what, they also consider themselves free.

Funny that you would reference 2 events. One peaceful and the other a glorified trespassing event. Yet you failed to mention the year of the liberal riots that had me forced to stay in my business of 11 days and saw cities taken over by thugs.

If the liberal riots didn't stoke some doubts something is wrong with you.

 

[Daddyo]

The 2nd, long ago became extinct which is why the court had to "interpret" it.

It has zero to do with folks owning guns for fun or protection.
It is clear in it's language.

Wrong the Supreme Court had to interpret it because some people aren't smart enough to understand plain English AND the same folks are to lazy to read our founding fathers own words with regard to the private possession of firearms by citizens.

In essence they require others to determine what is easily figured out with education.

A decade ago or so I had my kids help me debate guns in another forum. I didn't need the help but I pretended I did. When the question came up about if the 2nd amendment was a militia right or a citizen right both boys quoted our founders saying thing like "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" and " to disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them" as evidence that our founders did indeed mean for the people to keep and bear arms as it is written in the text. They were teenagers at the time lol and they got it with ease.

So my question to you is if the amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed AND those who wrote that amendment openly stated that they wanted the people to keep and bear arms, then what is your problem understanding this?

 

[Daddyo]

Are you going to arm yourself when the evil Republicans take control of the government later this year?

If they do they are once again proven Hypocrites!

 

[Daddyo]

nope

I am a typical fat American. (not overweight) Far to comfortable in my way too big home stocked with gourmet foods, giant TV screen and better than concert hall audio.

Even when Democracy ends in 2024 I will do little other than encourage my kids to take up residence in a new country.

If I were young, I would leave. Trumpism has bastardized freedom and perverted what was the greatest civilization in the history of man. So sad. So so sad.

Lol we can only pray that large numbers of liberals actually keep their word and leave the country.

We feel that liberalism and the progressive movement are what has bastardized and destroyed this country sadely. There is no issue that you can point to that wasn't made worst by their policy. From the border to the economy. Which is why the worst cities in this country have been run by liberals for decades.

 

[Daddyo]

I assure you, my house is big (for two people) my food is better than most, my A/V equipment is not exceeded by any except the filthy rich who are so inclined.

Oh, and I am not fat.

It's all true. No comedic satire in play.

The comedy was from you saying Trump bastardized freedom and perverted this great country.

It's classic the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Daddyo]

We don't yet and I have considered ceasing my posting on the subject for a while now.
I do feel that our decent will be gradual and that I have time before I must cease.

Every keystroke is recorded so it too late sorry for you.

 

[noonereal]

some people aren't smart enough to understand plain English

The irony is beyond profound.

Take the second, give it to ANY English teacher in the land and ask them to diagram the sentences and ask them what it means.

You will find that yes, the English is indeed plain. There is no controversy.

The controversy comes in when people who like owning guns start to jump through hoops to dispute the clear language.

This is not a debatable point. The English is clear. You need to stick with that awful "intent" shit because the language is plain English.

In essence they require others to determine what is easily figured out with education.

With all respect, sincerely, you know damned well my intellect is far superior to yours. So stop this stillness.

A decade ago or so I had my kids help me debate guns in another forum. I didn't need the help but I pretended I did. When the question came up about if the 2nd amendment was a militia right or a citizen right both boys quoted our founders saying thing like "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" and " to disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them" as evidence that our founders did indeed mean for the people to keep and bear arms as it is written in the text. They were teenagers at the time lol and they got it with ease.

So my question to you is if the amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed AND those who wrote that amendment openly stated that they wanted the people to keep and bear arms, then what is your problem understanding this?

You see? I had answered the above before I read this. This is EXCATLY what I said you had to argue isn't it? Yes it is.

The English is plain, as I said which is why you have to go to this argument.

Why can't you be honest? Seriously?

English is English. Intent can be argued.

 

[Daddyo]

Exactly! They simply said, "bye."

You never answered what you are going to do when they don't let your kids leave.