They came to take away the firearms

[TurtleDude]

The Second Amendment Has Always Been An Individual Right

When weapons were confiscated by authorities, it was typically in an effort to subjugate minorities — mostly blacks, Native Americans, and others who happen to get in the way of corrupt politicians. When one of the sponsors of the 14th Amendment made his argument for equal protection, it was no accident that he brought up vital “individual right” laid out in the Second Amendment. Not one person objected to say it was a collective right.

It wasn’t until the rise of criminality in the 1930s that there was any federal gun law—and even then, no one made the legal or political argument for the collective theory. It wasn’t until the late 1960s that the left adopted this imaginary understanding of a natural right.

 

[TurtleDude]

No - in fact, they're not even close. We've had some regulation of firearms for 100 years now, and all the Democrats are in favor of is a refinement of regulations. And it's perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. The idea that the average American should have access to what amounts to machine guns, with huge capacity magazines, is nothing short of ridiculous. If refinement of gun control is part of the Democrat's platform, then they are correct for adopting it.

As for your Bill of Rights, it wasn't the Democrats who suspended habeas corpus - it was Bush the Lesser and the REPUBLICAN neo-con-men.
And for the most part, it certainly wasn't the Democrats who gave us the euphemistically entitled "USA Patriot Act", which pretty much gives the government the right to declare anyone a threat to national security, pick them up at the WallMart while they're buying toilet paper, and go to their homes and confiscate all their guns while they're away. That was the REPUBLICANS TOO!
And it wasn't the Democrats who did an end run around the FISA court, and started tapping people's phone conversations en masse without a warrant. That was ALSO Bush and the REPUBLICANS who did that! So as far as the Bill of Rights go, it should be obvious which Party has been laying siege to it. The GOP.

Lastly, the Revolutionary War was not about access to guns - it was about taxation without representation. An entirely unrelated issue. So pretty much the entire premise of your post is just so much distortion of reality. You should pay better attention.

11 rounds being HUGE CAPACITY?

if civilian police are using real machine guns (they do) with 30 round magazines (standard issue for an M4 or a MP-5) then honest citizens ought to have the same access to such firearms that are issued to civilian police for self defense.

 

[PCB66]

No - in fact, they're not even close. We've had some regulation of firearms for 100 years now, and all the Democrats are in favor of is a refinement of regulations. And it's perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. The idea that the average American should have access to what amounts to machine guns, with huge capacity magazines, is nothing short of ridiculous. If refinement of gun control is part of the Democrat's platform, then they are correct for adopting it.

As for your Bill of Rights, it wasn't the Democrats who suspended habeas corpus - it was Bush the Lesser and the REPUBLICAN neo-con-men.
And for the most part, it certainly wasn't the Democrats who gave us the euphemistically entitled "USA Patriot Act", which pretty much gives the government the right to declare anyone a threat to national security, pick them up at the WallMart while they're buying toilet paper, and go to their homes and confiscate all their guns while they're away. That was the REPUBLICANS TOO!
And it wasn't the Democrats who did an end run around the FISA court, and started tapping people's phone conversations en masse without a warrant. That was ALSO Bush and the REPUBLICANS who did that! So as far as the Bill of Rights go, it should be obvious which Party has been laying siege to it. The GOP.

Lastly, the Revolutionary War was not about access to guns - it was about taxation without representation. An entirely unrelated issue. So pretty much the entire premise of your post is just so much distortion of reality. You should pay better attention.

My goddness you are confused.

I expect that level of confusion of the anti gunners. I see it all the time. Not not even being able to recognize oppressive anti Constitutional infringements upon personal liberty.

The Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stating that because the Liberals have got away with infringing our Constitutional Liberties as a justification for doing it is really disingenuous wouldn't you agree?

This country has allowed our Conditional Liberty to be taken away because we have not applies Strict Scrutiny to that right as we have other rights. It is time for that to stop.

The government has absolutely no authority to take away the rights protected in the Bill of Rights. If they do it they are acting in a criminal manner. If we let them do it then we have abdicated the Bill of Rights.

Those patriots opposing the government on Lexington Green understood government oppression.

Liberals nowadays don't have a clue. They are the Redcoats that come to take the guns away. They like government oppression because it advances their agenda to make this country a socialist craphole. The right to keep and bear arms is perceived as a big impediment by the Left to making the US a socialist craphole. That is why they push that agenda so much.

They don't give a damn about minority inner city thugs killing one another. in the Democrat controlled big city crapholes where most of the gun violence takes place. They want to take firearms away from the Conservative White guy that doesn't vote for the filthy Democrats.

 

[Jason Warfield]

"Those patriots opposing the government on Lexington Green understood government oppression."

They did and it was over taxation without representation. As I stated before, the average colonist had personal access to firearms if they wanted to...and could afford it. Especially those on the frontier and rural areas who dealt with Indians. This who lived in more urban areas didn't have firearms only because they didn't really need them; at most they might've had a pistol.

Colonial governors used public buildings to store shot and powder and government-owned firearms for those militia who could not afford firearms. When Gates went to Concord, it was a military operation to deny the rebels in Massachusetts shot, powder, limited amount of firearms and three cannon. That was their objective: they did not confiscate any firearms while on the way. Only acted on intel where the public stores might be. And remember: this military action applied ONLY to Massachusetts, as it was at that point, considered to be the only colony in a state of rebellion.

it should also be noted that the 2nd Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791...the battle of Lexington and Concord happened in April, 1775...over 16 years afterwards. And the Articles of Confederation NEVER affirmed an individual right to owning a firearm, but directed that each state is responsible to "...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

So, for at least 16 years and one form of government...there was no official right or law denoting the personal right to firearms. If this war was really about a gun grab...then why did it take 16 years to make it an actual right? And even then, it was an afterthought as the actual, original Constitution itself does not state anything about individual rights to firearms and that was ratified on June 21, 1788...a little over three years PRIOR to the ratification of the Bill of Rights!

Look, I'm not saying that the 2nd isn't important to the US, it most certainly is! But your simplistic view of history does not match with historical fact. What you are promoting is propaganda...and fake news.

 

[Vadinho]

you are confused about a right-a right prevents the government from interfering with what I do. and you are really confused when you pretend that "well regulated" as applied to the militia, means the second amendment was intended to grant the federal government any power. Not a single anti gun law has been based on that argument-ever. well regulated meant a militia in good working order-it has nothing to do with federal power

There have been very few cases before the courts regarding the 2nd amendment. If the case involved the federal government regulating arms, then one would have to ignore the text of the 2nd to stop the regulation. Heller did just that by creating a personal need for a weapon for self-defense, not for being part of a militia. So in order to agree with your premise, there are no regulations available to the government as it concerns guns or arms. That seems to be your bottom line. If so, that would mean any of us could own any weapon we wanted. Using Heller's definition that self-defense weapons must come from the available pool of weapons already in circulation, all it would take for any of us to own a rocket launcher would be for a state to allow its sale and for all of us to have them, then no one could take them away. its silly and dangerous reasoning.

 

[MamboDervish]

My goddness you are confused.

I expect that level of confusion of the anti gunners. I see it all the time. Not not even being able to recognize oppressive anti Constitutional infringements upon personal liberty.

The Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stating that because the Liberals have got away with infringing our Constitutional Liberties as a justification for doing it is really disingenuous wouldn't you agree?

This country has allowed our Conditional Liberty to be taken away because we have not applies Strict Scrutiny to that right as we have other rights. It is time for that to stop.

The government has absolutely no authority to take away the rights protected in the Bill of Rights. If they do it they are acting in a criminal manner. If we let them do it then we have abdicated the Bill of Rights.

Those patriots opposing the government on Lexington Green understood government oppression.

Liberals nowadays don't have a clue. They are the Redcoats that come to take the guns away. They like government oppression because it advances their agenda to make this country a socialist craphole. The right to keep and bear arms is perceived as a big impediment by the Left to making the US a socialist craphole. That is why they push that agenda so much.

They don't give a damn about minority inner city thugs killing one another. in the Democrat controlled big city crapholes where most of the gun violence takes place. They want to take firearms away from the Conservative White guy that doesn't vote for the filthy Democrats.

LOL - well . . . . . that's an awful lot of words to manage to completely avoid addressing my clearly expressed points about how your rights are far more endangered by the Republicans than they are by the Democrats. I can understand your discomfort in actually taking aim where it matters most - because it's too close to home. Better to tell yourself it's the Democrats that threaten your rights, rather than address the facts in the real world. Do you send checks to the NRA? Or do they send them to you???

 

[TurtleDude]

There have been very few cases before the courts regarding the 2nd amendment. If the case involved the federal government regulating arms, then one would have to ignore the text of the 2nd to stop the regulation. Heller did just that by creating a personal need for a weapon for self-defense, not for being part of a militia. So in order to agree with your premise, there are no regulations available to the government as it concerns guns or arms. That seems to be your bottom line. If so, that would mean any of us could own any weapon we wanted. Using Heller's definition that self-defense weapons must come from the available pool of weapons already in circulation, all it would take for any of us to own a rocket launcher would be for a state to allow its sale and for all of us to have them, then no one could take them away. its silly and dangerous reasoning.

So you buy into the attitude that since the government needs to have that power, that power must exist?

 

[Vadinho]

So you buy into the attitude that since the government needs to have that power, that power must exist?

Absolutely. If it were up to me I would repeal the 2nd and make it a privilege much like driving or flying a plane. People would still be able to own guns but under strict rules and for acceptable reasons. Under no circumstances do I believe any of us should own weapons that can fire so many rounds so quickly. Those are human killing machines. If you needed such a weapon to say, mow down feral hogs, then the outfit you hire owns the gun, lets you use it and you walk away. But the barn door has been open for too long and now we have hundreds of millions of guns out there. We just have to decide whether we want a billion of them. Do we?

 

[TurtleDude]

Absolutely. If it were up to me I would repeal the 2nd and make it a privilege much like driving or flying a plane. People would still be able to own guns but under strict rules and for acceptable reasons. Under no circumstances do I believe any of us should own weapons that can fire so many rounds so quickly. Those are human killing machines. If you needed such a weapon to say, mow down feral hogs, then the outfit you hire owns the gun, lets you use it and you walk away. But the barn door has been open for too long and now we have hundreds of millions of guns out there. We just have to decide whether we want a billion of them. Do we?

how many Americans have been killed by legally owned machine guns held by private citizens in the last 50 years (answer, less than 3 and the two cases I have found, the perpetrators were police officers)

how many Americans are killed by people using legally owned semi Auto rifles that gun haters call "assault weapons"? (answer, less than 2% of murders-far less than beatings, knifings or clubbing)

what it comes down to is this

the leftwing rarely trusts individuals but has full faith in the government and see it as the source of most of that which is good. Your position that if a government needs a power-it should have that power-the constitutional restrictions be damned, is proof of that-at least as to people who believe as you do

people on the right are far more likely to trust individuals and see government as a necessary evil

 

[Vadinho]

how many Americans have been killed by legally owned machine guns held by private citizens in the last 50 years (answer, less than 3 and the two cases I have found, the perpetrators were police officers)

how many Americans are killed by people using legally owned semi Auto rifles that gun haters call "assault weapons"? (answer, less than 2% of murders-far less than beatings, knifings or clubbing)

what it comes down to is this

the leftwing rarely trusts individuals but has full faith in the government and see it as the source of most of that which is good. Your position that if a government needs a power-it should have that power-the constitutional restrictions be damned, is proof of that-at least as to people who believe as you do

people on the right are far more likely to trust individuals and see government as a necessary evil

So you have exhausted your constitutional evidence or lack thereof and now want to redirect to a political debate about trust in the government. Since you are now changing the topic, I am done.

 

[Famagusta]

So you have exhausted your constitutional evidence or lack thereof and now want to redirect to a political debate about trust in the government. Since you are now changing the topic, I am done.

I wouldn’t know. I’ve never read one.

 

[TurtleDude]

So you have exhausted your constitutional evidence or lack thereof and now want to redirect to a political debate about trust in the government. Since you are now changing the topic, I am done.

You have made claims about the second that have zero support in

1) any majority opinion of the supreme court

2) any commentary from leading legal scholars

3) any commentary from the first wave of legal scholars such as Rawls or St George Tucker

4) any written documents from the founders

5) any consistency with the other parts of the bill of rights

what we have is your belief that the federal government ought to have the power to ban some or all firearms, and therefore such power must exist.

We know that the Miller case-decided in 1939, was a set up by the FDR administration, to get a sympathetic court to uphold the dubious claim that the commerce clause allowed de facto gun bans in the form of excessive taxes. Yet, even the lapdog Supreme Court-without Miller's side appearing (since he died before the court heard the case)-didn't rule that his position failed for a lack of standing. Since Miller was a career criminal, and had never served in any militia, if your view of the second was correct, he would have had no standing to assert a right to own any arm.

 

[Vadinho]

You have made claims about the second that have zero support in

1) any majority opinion of the supreme court

2) any commentary from leading legal scholars

3) any commentary from the first wave of legal scholars such as Rawls or St George Tucker

4) any written documents from the founders

5) any consistency with the other parts of the bill of rights

what we have is your belief that the federal government ought to have the power to ban some or all firearms, and therefore such power must exist.

We know that the Miller case-decided in 1939, was a set up by the FDR administration, to get a sympathetic court to uphold the dubious claim that the commerce clause allowed de facto gun bans in the form of excessive taxes. Yet, even the lapdog Supreme Court-without Miller's side appearing (since he died before the court heard the case)-didn't rule that his position failed for a lack of standing. Since Miller was a career criminal, and had never served in any militia, if your view of the second was correct, he would have had no standing to assert a right to own any arm.

I have shown you word for word quotes from the dissenting opinion on Heller. If you want to claim that 4 of the 9 justices do not know what they are talking about then you must allow me the same privilege in regards to the 5 that voted the other way. I have shown you legal arguments why Scalia was wrong. You have not even quoted Scalias majority opinion as a counter. Rather, you just spew your opinions rather then cite court documents. Lets face it, you do not believe that the government can regulate arms to individuals despite the wording of the 2nd giving them that express right and more emphatically, the majority opinion agreed that the government can regulate arms. So we are done now.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have shown you word for word quotes from the dissenting opinion on Heller. If you want to claim that 4 of the 9 justices do not know what they are talking about then you must allow me the same privilege in regards to the 5 that voted the other way. I have shown you legal arguments why Scalia was wrong. You have not even quoted Scalias majority opinion as a counter. Rather, you just spew your opinions rather then cite court documents. Lets face it, you do not believe that the government can regulate arms to individuals despite the wording of the 2nd giving them that express right and more emphatically, the majority opinion agreed that the government can regulate arms. So we are done now.

dissenting opinion-yet it still assumed an individual right. Stevens' dissent was one of the most idiotic I have ever read (out of thousands). his main argument was a modification of the ontological argument for a diety: that being he could not imagine a proper government not having the proper power to ban guns so such a power must exist.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Nobody is coming to take my guns away.

God damn this stupid crap never ends.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nobody is coming to take my guns away.

God damn this stupid crap never ends.

are you denying that some in the party that you support want to do that?

 

[MamboDervish]

My goddness you are confused.

I expect that level of confusion of the anti gunners. I see it all the time. Not not even being able to recognize oppressive anti Constitutional infringements upon personal liberty.

The Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stating that because the Liberals have got away with infringing our Constitutional Liberties as a justification for doing it is really disingenuous wouldn't you agree?

This country has allowed our Conditional Liberty to be taken away because we have not applies Strict Scrutiny to that right as we have other rights. It is time for that to stop.

The government has absolutely no authority to take away the rights protected in the Bill of Rights. If they do it they are acting in a criminal manner. If we let them do it then we have abdicated the Bill of Rights.

Those patriots opposing the government on Lexington Green understood government oppression.

Liberals nowadays don't have a clue. They are the Redcoats that come to take the guns away. They like government oppression because it advances their agenda to make this country a socialist craphole. The right to keep and bear arms is perceived as a big impediment by the Left to making the US a socialist craphole. That is why they push that agenda so much.

They don't give a damn about minority inner city thugs killing one another. in the Democrat controlled big city crapholes where most of the gun violence takes place. They want to take firearms away from the Conservative White guy that doesn't vote for the filthy Democrats.

Well there's a load of feeble straw man arguments. The federal government absolutely has the right to REGULATE guns. That is OLD LAW. Get over it. Time and time again the Supreme Court has upheld gun regulations. Why are you acting like an idiot?

 

[haymarket]

Nobody is coming to take my guns away.

God damn this stupid crap never ends.

This is the fevered right wing nightmare that is constantly trotted out to scare the flock and increase dues payments to the NRA.

Right wingers need it like fish need water.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well there's a load of feeble straw man arguments. The federal government absolutely has the right to REGULATE guns. That is OLD LAW. Get over it. Time and time again the Supreme Court has upheld gun regulations. Why are you acting like an idiot?

governments don't have rights-they have powers-and that federal power is based on a dishonest expansion of the commerce clause. While current regulations will probably remain, any attempts to expand federal regulations will most likely be shot down

 

[OpportunityCost]

This is the fevered right wing nightmare that is constantly trotted out to scare the flock and increase dues payments to the NRA.

Right wingers need it like fish need water.

Access Denied
Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President
Beto O'Rourke on gun control: 'Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15' – video | US news | The Guardian
California adopts broadest US rules for seizing guns
Maryland officers serving "red flag" gun removal order fatally shoot armed man - CBS News
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/chi-illinois-concealed-carry-story.html

Maybe if you would quit electing and having candidates that fully intend to confiscate and say so, we would have nothing to worry about.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Well there's a load of feeble straw man arguments. The federal government absolutely has the right to REGULATE guns. That is OLD LAW. Get over it. Time and time again the Supreme Court has upheld gun regulations. Why are you acting like an idiot?

Until they didn't. Heller was a signal---we accept these gun regulations, but not these. If you try to pass more like these, we will strike them down and they proved it with the case against Chicago and telling Illinois they couldn't ban open carry and refuse to have concealed carry as a shall issue rather than may issue and then denying most CC permits.

Right now there is a case brewing that may strike down the Illinois FOID licensing structure.

 

[TurtleDude]

Until they didn't. Heller was a signal---we accept these gun regulations, but not these. If you try to pass more like these, we will strike them down and they proved it with the case against Chicago and telling Illinois they couldn't ban open carry and refuse to have concealed carry as a shall issue rather than may issue and then denying most CC permits.

Right now there is a case brewing that may strike down the Illinois FOID licensing structure.

Roberts and some of the other timid conservatives, have shown they are willing to allow past expansions of the commerce clause nonsense to stand, but they won't allow additional expansions.

 

[Bob N]

Almost every state. Here in Florida they took away bump stock ...

Didn't Trump issue an executive order banning bump stocks?

 

[haymarket]

Access Denied
Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President
Beto O'Rourke on gun control: 'Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15' – video | US news | The Guardian
California adopts broadest US rules for seizing guns
Maryland officers serving "red flag" gun removal order fatally shoot armed man - CBS News
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/chi-illinois-concealed-carry-story.html

Maybe if you would quit electing and having candidates that fully intend to confiscate and say so, we would have nothing to worry about.

Those very few people are the far right wings air and water which keeps them going.

 

[jbander]

My goddness you are confused.

I expect that level of confusion of the anti gunners. I see it all the time. Not not even being able to recognize oppressive anti Constitutional infringements upon personal liberty.

The Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stating that because the Liberals have got away with infringing our Constitutional Liberties as a justification for doing it is really disingenuous wouldn't you agree?

This country has allowed our Conditional Liberty to be taken away because we have not applies Strict Scrutiny to that right as we have other rights. It is time for that to stop.

The government has absolutely no authority to take away the rights protected in the Bill of Rights. If they do it they are acting in a criminal manner. If we let them do it then we have abdicated the Bill of Rights.

Those patriots opposing the government on Lexington Green understood government oppression.

Liberals nowadays don't have a clue. They are the Redcoats that come to take the guns away. They like government oppression because it advances their agenda to make this country a socialist craphole. The right to keep and bear arms is perceived as a big impediment by the Left to making the US a socialist craphole. That is why they push that agenda so much.

They don't give a damn about minority inner city thugs killing one another. in the Democrat controlled big city crapholes where most of the gun violence takes place. They want to take firearms away from the Conservative White guy that doesn't vote for the filthy Democrats.

Libertarian right= Nazi wannabee , Gibberish, non facts, bull**** and lies, what a line of ugly hate. Commies and everything. Heil screaming carrot. The slimy world of the right.