Why Attack the 2nd Amendment?

[TurtleDude]

But I thought if I had a gun the only person it was dangerous to was me or my loved ones?

that's what the criminals want you to think

Gun control is to criminals what OSHA is to factor workers

 

[Centinel]

that's what the criminals want you to think

Gun control is to criminals what OSHA is to factor workers

Shades of the SAT. :shock:

 

[blackjack50]

I'm thinkin this thread is dead now. I'm glad it got 83 pages in lol. I wonder if thunder will come back? Was just talking to my Grandmother who is a Democrat and she wants a handgun lol.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

that's what the criminals want you to think

Gun control is to criminals what OSHA is to factory workers

True, though as a factory worker, I am not terribly thrilled with the implied analogy between factory workers and criminals. But then any offense I could take from that is not what you appear to have meant.

 

[TurtleDude]

True, though as a factory worker, I am not terribly thrilled with the implied analogy between factory workers and criminals. But then any offense I could take from that is not what you appear to have meant.

What i was saying is OSHA was intended to make the working conditions of factory workers safer

Gun Control is designed to make the working environment for criminals safer.

 

[AGENT J]

You have little sense of logic yet you claim you are logical. And you keep talking about banning the gun over and over when responding to my posts when its not part of my argument to ban the gun. And your hahahahaing and lolololing does little to add to the ongoing debate.

That statement is completely disingenuous because if you were that worried about your safety, you would not waited to purchase a firearm, you would have already have owned a gun. So logic would dictate that you would have purchased a gun when you are 18. And since you own at least one gun, you are not in that much as a danger because you have at least one firearm to protect yourself, be it shotgun, rifle, handgun, that should be reasonably sufficient while you wait for your another gun. If you are that concerned about waiting for a gun at immediately turning 18, then we can make a fix for that in that you can apply and wait for the gun before the age of 18, and then pick one up the day you turn 18 if it is your first gun. And if you have certain knowledge that you will be harmed in the next 90-180 days, then you should go to the Police. Otherwise, it is not a certainty that you will be harmed in the next 90-180 days and claiming that you fear for your family's safety, especially if you don't already own a firearm and haven't just turned 18, is disingenuous.

Based on how you have been shown to be completely wrong on the previous argument, you have little idea what you are talking about and it would be pointless to continue to argue.

why do you lie and make stuff up? who waited to own a hand gun, do you often make stuff up when you have no logical argument and you haven proved me wrong one single time LOL NOT ONCE LMAO

hmm I read all this drivel and I STILL see no answer to the two questions I asked, thats what I thought because there no logic to support it.

Ill keep waiting though, you dishonesty is astounding, its also entertaining watching you talk in every direction accept the one Im asking you to talk in and watching you play semantics while ignoring logic and reality.

please stop dodging and man up and answer the questions LMAO

CRICKETS :waiting:

 

[blackjack50]

CRICKETS :waiting:

Just noticed something in the statement...if anyone had certain knowledge they were going to be harmed they would go to the police. That isn't why you have a gun though. You have a gun for that uncertain time, which is all the time.

Comandment 1 of Concealed Carry: It is a totally worthless tool if you do not have it with you. Why buy a hammer and not take it with you to a construction site? Of course in the case of a construction site you would probably just be fired if you didn't have it. The consequences when dealing with the not so rational criminal element is usually a little more severe when you underestimate their capabilities.

Edit PS:

You have to be 21 to purchase a handgun. I am unaware of any state in the Union where you can be under to purchase.

 

[AGENT J]

Just noticed something in the statement...if anyone had certain knowledge they were going to be harmed they would go to the police. That isn't why you have a gun though. You have a gun for that uncertain time, which is all the time.

Comandment 1 of Concealed Carry: It is a totally worthless tool if you do not have it with you. Why buy a hammer and not take it with you to a construction site? Of course in the case of a construction site you would probably just be fired if you didn't have it. The consequences when dealing with the not so rational criminal element is usually a little more severe when you underestimate their capabilities.

Edit PS:

You have to be 21 to purchase a handgun. I am unaware of any state in the Union where you can be under to purchase.

the 18 vs 21 thing is probably just more nonsense and illogical banter from him but someone, MAYBE him did mention rifles vs handguns earlier in the thread but I think Im really reaching trying to be civil and help him out LMAO

 

[Willie Orwontee]

SCOTUS has upheld the Constitutionality of common-sense regulations on gun sales, ownership, and places where one can carry them.

No they didn't. You are regurgitating a Wikipedia entry's spin, you certainly are not using the words of SCOTUS to arrive at your position.

If anything SCOTUS recognizes the infirmity of those laws . . . especially state laws that have been challenged and previously affirmed by various lower courts using legal reasoning's rendered invalid by Heller (individual right) and McDonald (2nd Amendment applicable to state law) and any decision arrived at through judicial interest balancing.

Sorry to say Thunder, that defines 99% of the gun laws out there.

I'm not saying that some laws can not be argued to rest on constitutional footing, just that right now, if a law has been challenged and the decision affirming it has any of those qualities (like citing U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) or Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) or their illegitimate progeny) then it is infirm and only in need of a slight push to come tumbling down.

If your side was smart you would be searching for ways to rewrite the gun laws you want to keep, grounding them (if possible) on constitutionally supportable foundations conforming with the realities of the Heller and McDonald holdings. Believing the Brady spin and deluding yourself into these "it was a win for gun control" hallucinations is just gonna make the final outcome seem more harsh.

As it stands now, wide swaths of gun control (some of it legitimate) will soon be invalidated because the legal support for their existence has been completely extinguished. At real peril are the gun control schemes in states like New Jersey and California . . .

NJ, having no right to arms provision in their state constitution never built a sophisticated legal record of the right to arms in the state. NJ's courts, for 50+ years just lazily rested the legality of their laws on those lower federal court decisions declaring the 2nd to only protect state milita powers and other decisions that held the 2nd is not incorporated under the 14th. When you actually read the case law it is clear that NJ's draconian firearms ID and purchase permit system has only passed constitutional scrutiny in state supreme court because the 2nd WAS not applicable upon the states and if it were, the 2nd only secures the right of a state to form a militia, there being no individual aspect contained in the 2nd Amendment -- see Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968).

What you should be taking from Heller and McDonald is that it is dangerous to discuss the validity of laws that have been sustained on now illegitimate reasonings / holdings and that it is foolish to assume that even constitutionally legitimate laws will pass post Heller /McDonald constitutional scrutiny if their validity now rests on poisoned ground. Your understanding of this requires a deeper knowledge of the Constitution than what's acquired from skimming a Wikipedia article and mindlessly parroting Brady spin.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

I bet you have NO clue what Article 1 Section 8 says about the Militia, now do ya?

Actually more on point to this discussion would you explaining what you think any clause of Art I, § 8 says about either the personal arms of the private citizen or the citizen himself when not enrolled in any militia corps.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

once again: the 2nd Amendment refers to keeping & bearing arms. That literally refers to where & how you keep your weapons, and how you take them with you.

so yes, the 2nd Amendment doesn't talk about buying guns, therefore the govt. has the right to regulate gun-sales.

Hey, I'm just being a Literal Constitutionalist.

No, you are being exactly the type of person the Federalists warned us about. Those who would read a provision declaring something shall not be done for which no power was ever granted to do . . . and then mutating those words recognizing and securing the right into granting a regulating power.

Your perverse statist intent to usurp power is nothing new, it was recognized and was fully understood by the Federalists and was, precisely, one of the reasons they argued that adding a bill of rights to our constitution of conferred, limited powers was actually dangerous to the retained rights of the people.

Thankfully SCOTUS has re-re-re-re-affirmed the principle that the right to arms is not granted, created, given, established, conditioned or qualified by the 2nd Amendment and that the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not in any manner dependent upon the words of any provision of the Constitution.

The right to arms is a retained right, no aspect of it was ever offered or granted to government . . . It is the epitome of idiocy to argue that the government, through the 2nd Amendment, gave back to the people a limited, conditioned shell of a right they never parted with. Really, it's downright anti-American and certainly anti-Constitution.

So the question you must address is: Why do you insist being in constant opposition to the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights and the clear determinations of the Supreme Court reaffirming those principles as supreme and unalterable?

 

[1029066]

Ok here's the thing. If you illegalize or put mega restrictions on gun possession, you'll create a black market of criminals selling firearms to other criminals. Then, when some asshole breaks into your house with a handgun, where's your shotgun that you could've had to defend yourself with? All I'm saying is that only the bad people will have guns if they're made illegal.

Look at the war on drugs. People still get drugs. I could get any drug I wanted VERY easily. And they're completely illegal. It's absolutely ridiculous, and we are only wasting resources trying to eradicate them. Same thing with guns. For instance, in Kennesaw GA, there is a VERY low crime rate. And why? Because every household is required to own a gun. So nobody is going to **** with anyone.

 

[Amigo]

Ok here's the thing. If you illegalize or put mega restrictions on gun possession, you'll create a black market of criminals selling firearms to other criminals. Then, when some asshole breaks into your house with a handgun, where's your shotgun that you could've had to defend yourself with? All I'm saying is that only the bad people will have guns if they're made illegal.

Look at the war on drugs. People still get drugs. I could get any drug I wanted VERY easily. And they're completely illegal. It's absolutely ridiculous, and we are only wasting resources trying to eradicate them. Same thing with guns. For instance, in Kennesaw GA, there is a VERY low crime rate. And why? Because every household is required to own a gun. So nobody is going to **** with anyone.

I'm supprised you consider yourself Very Liberal, that stance on Gun however, I admire. :2wave:

 

[Thunder]

Actually more on point to this discussion would you explaining what you think any clause of Art I, § 8 says about either the personal arms of the private citizen or the citizen himself when not enrolled in any militia corps.

Article 1 Section 8 refers to the well-regulations Militia, to be used to put down insurrections.

The 2nd Amendment again, refers to this well-regulated Militia.

And once again, the Militia Act of 1792, refers to the well-regulated Militia.

And yet somehow, the SCOTUS failed to consider this relevant in any way, in regards to the intent of all these three laws.

While I totally disagree with the SCOTUS on this issue, It is my duty as a patriotic American to respect their decision.

 

[liblady]

I'm supprised you consider yourself Very Liberal, that stance on Gun however, I admire. :2wave:

Why? I am liberal and have no issues with responsible gun ownership.

 

[Amigo]

Why? I am liberal and have no issues with responsible gun ownership.

Well you see, the liberal politicians don't, they want to take our guns away.

 

[Thunder]

Well you see, the liberal politicians don't, they want to take our guns away.

this is of course, a lie.

Liberal polticians simply want more common-sense gun regulations.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Actually more on point to this discussion would you explaining what you think any clause of Art I, § 8 says about either the personal arms of the private citizen or the citizen himself when not enrolled in any militia corps.

Article 1 Section 8 refers to the well-regulations Militia, to be used to put down insurrections.

The 2nd Amendment again, refers to this well-regulated Militia.

And once again, the Militia Act of 1792, refers to the well-regulated Militia.

And yet somehow, the SCOTUS failed to consider this relevant in any way, in regards to the intent of all these three laws.

While I totally disagree with the SCOTUS on this issue, It is my duty as a patriotic American to respect their decision.

It isn't relevant because Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16 are conferring limited powers and the Militia Act of 1792 is an execution of those limited powers directing states to organize and train THE ENROLLED MILITIA. Those limited powers say nothing that can be extended to impact private citizens and their personal arms WHEN THOSE CITIZENS ARE NOT ENROLLED IN THEIR STATE'S MILITIA.

So, you did not answer my question. The question was; what does any clause of Art I, § 8 say about either the personal arms of the private citizen or the citizen himself when not enrolled in any militia corps?

I will stipulate that Congress does have limited governing authority over a citizen (and the one arm he chooses to muster with, to fulfill his militia obligation) only when that citizen is, a) enrolled in his state militia AND, b) the portion of the state militia in which he is enrolled, is called into actual service of the nation. In enumerating that specific conditioning for federal governance, the Constitution excludes any other conditions from creating federal authority to govern the actions of the citizenry (enrolled or not) and to dictate conditions regarding his his personal arms.

.

Art I, § 8, "Congress shall have the power:

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress: "​

.

Congress directs the states as to organization and training; they have no governing authority over any militia if no militia is "employed in the service of the United States".

Likewise, the President's authority over the militia is similarly limited.

Since the President is, "Commander-in-Chief of the . . . militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; . . . That means he has no authority over any militia if no militia is "in actual service to the nation".

A private citizen not enrolled in his state's militia and his state having no part of its militia in actual service to the nation, is at least twice removed from having any federal governing authority over him and his arms.

Try answering again . . .

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well you see, the liberal politicians don't, they want to take our guns away.

this is of course, a lie.

Liberal polticians simply want more common-sense gun regulations.

—————

—————

 

[Thunder]

—————
View attachment 67120571
—————

pretty picture.

 

[TurtleDude]

this is of course, a lie.

Liberal polticians simply want more common-sense gun regulations.

bans on magazine capacities, bans on semi autos, and discretionary carry licenses are not reasonable

 

[Thunder]

bans on magazine capacities, bans on semi autos, and discretionary carry licenses are not reasonable

we shall see what the SCOTUS has to say about that. And I expect gun-owners to respect the judgement of our Supreme Court, just as I do..even though I firmly disagree with it.

 

[Opteron]

I assure you, you’re not being nearly as clever as you’re giving yourself credit for. Let’s start with your flawed logic at the beginning of your post. You contend that if someone was really in danger and needed a firearm, they should already have one. If they don’t have a firearm, it must be because they aren’t in any danger. Wait, what? Do you also think that people who don’t own fire extinguishers aren’t in any danger of a fire?

Nah, you got it wrong. I didn't say people will not be in any danger, I said if you complain about safety, you should already have owned a firearm at the earliest time possible, don't try to blame a waiting period on why you're not safe. If safety is that important to you, yeah, you should already own a firearm. The only time you would have a problem is in the first firearm you own.

People will always be in a little bit of danger, but those who talk about guns for safety should at least own one firearm so they aren't hypocritical, and then they can't blame a wait period for not being safe. Lots of people are content not to own a firearm and feel safe, are ok with being able to call the police if there's trouble, or live in a low crime neighborhood. In fact there are many people who don't own firearms who go their lives without having a criminal encounter.

There's always a risk of a heart attack for everyone at all times. So does that mean everyone should carry a defibrillator at all times? Virtually most people don't carry a defibrillator everywhere they go, they are only in a few key locations like planes etc. where they may be useful.

To use the analogy again, no one waits until their house is burning to run out and buy a fire extinguisher. Either you’re prepared, or you aren’t.

Exactly. You should plan ahead and own a firearm. Don't try to blame wait periods on you not being safe, you either plan ahead and own a firearm or you don't. If you're moving to a high crime city, then plan ahead.

 

[TurtleDude]

I understand that some people are afraid of guns. Fine-the solution for those who are timid is not to own a gun--NOT to project their issues onto others

 

[Thunder]

I understand that some people are afraid of guns. Fine-the solution for those who are timid is not to own a gun--NOT to project their issues onto others

strawman. wanting strict rules for handguns while more liberal rules for rifles/shotguns, does not make someone "fearful" of guns.

debate against our actual beliefs, not ones you make up.