would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

[BahamaBob]

Simple legal error or "legislation from the bench", take your pick.



This is the Common understanding of the Common Law for the Common Defense:



The whole and entire People are the Militia of the United States. Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

Error from the bench? You mean like Roe vs Wade?

 

[danielpalos]

Error from the bench? You mean like Roe vs Wade?

nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies?

Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by civil authorities while in the service of their State or the Union.

The DOJ sets the laws for the UCMJ and SCOTUS can intervene. So, false.

 

[OpportunityCost]

nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies?

So are you saying everyone is militia?

They are not. They are potentially the militia, they are not regulated as mustered when civilian and they keep their arms before and after service.

Your stance is nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

The DOJ sets the laws for the UCMJ and SCOTUS can intervene. So, false.

Not according to our federal Constitution; well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringe when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

So are you saying everyone is militia?

They are not. They are potentially the militia, they are not regulated as mustered when civilian and they keep their arms before and after service.

Your stance is nonsense.

lol. The unorganized militia is unnecessary to the security of a free State and subject to the traditional Police Power of a State.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since your story about being able to target an enemy 40 miles away is a lie, I infer the rest of your story is also a lie.

New Jersey used airbcraft to site in the target, the projectile in a 16 inch gun can travel 40 miles. I was on a DD, and made no such claim that the 5" in which I was the projectile man could do so.

It seems your ability to read and comprehend my writings is effected by your biases. Calling me a liar was necessary and sufficient for me to put you on ignore, as I have done on my prior message boards with jerks like you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your position is well thought out, and reasonable. The only problem I have with it is having to "prove a reasonable concern" to get a permit. I don't have a problem with a background check, and I believe that each state has the right to put certain regulations in place. The problem with proving a concern or need is it is subjective. I'm a 64 year old man with several injuries from 2 motorcycle accidents. Although I am limited physically by 2 artificial hips and rods and screws in my back and a reconstructed lower right leg, I can handle a firearm well. I have permits that allow me to carry in almost 40 states (I travel extensively with my MC). It's ridiculous that I can't carry in my own state. Although I've been confronted more than once, while armed, I've never pulled my gun. The only time I've used a gun for defense was at my house, and I only had too show it. Here's my problem. I am military trained, and I keep up my firearm training probably more than most police dept. do. Yet living in a city, with about half million people, that averages about 7 shootings and 1 murder per day, I don't qualify. Here's Md.s gun law:Open and concealed carry are legal in Maryland only for Maryland Wear/Carry Handgun Permit (WCHP) holders. In order to obtain a WCHP, applicants must be at least 21 years old (or 18 years old for employment purposes only) and must show a good and substantial reason to carry a handgun. Believe it or not, being a senior citizen with physical limitations in this city is not considered a "good and substantial reason to carry a handgun". I would like to be a "shall issue state", like Pa. or Fla. etc. In those states, CCW holders commit illegal shootings than police officers do. The JACS did a 30 year exhaustive study, and found that gun laws have no effect on gun crimes either way. "State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime "This study demonstrates no statistical association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over 3 decades and the rates of homicides, firearm homicides, or other violent crime, using a rigorous statistical model."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...4-X/fulltext&usg=AOvVaw27fa2sZz9NFJj76Vl98ipg

You make an excellent point. I'd suggest you contact your representative in the Legislature, and see if s/he is open to modifying the CC law to allow an appeal for persons such as you described; those who are vulnerable and I presume would be an easy target by some limited mobility. It would seem to modify the law for those with "a good and substantial reason" deserve a hearing with a board of non biased citizens.

 

[mrdeltoid]

You make an excellent point. I'd suggest you contact your representative in the Legislature, and see if s/he is open to modifying the CC law to allow an appeal for persons such as you described; those who are vulnerable and I presume would be an easy target by some limited mobility. It would seem to modify the law for those with "a good and substantial reason" deserve a hearing with a board of non biased citizens.

I never even gave that a thought! That's a great idea, and I believe I'll check into it. Thanks!eaceeace

 

[BahamaBob]

New Jersey used airbcraft to site in the target, the projectile in a 16 inch gun can travel 40 miles. I was on a DD, and made no such claim that the 5" in which I was the projectile man could do so.

It seems your ability to read and comprehend my writings is effected by your biases. Calling me a liar was necessary and sufficient for me to put you on ignore, as I have done on my prior message boards with jerks like you.

There in nothing wrong with my comprehension. Print lies and people will think you a liar.

Here is some education for you.
Shells of different weights were fired, weighing from approximately 1,900 to 2,700 pounds. The heaviest shell was the AP (armor piercing) projectile, which had a maximum range 42,345 yards from the 16"/50 gun, or 39,000 yards from the 16"/45 gun (about 22 miles).

16" Battleship Gun Facts

 

[Wry Catcher]

There in nothing wrong with my comprehension. Print lies and people will think you a liar.

Here is some education for you.
Shells of different weights were fired, weighing from approximately 1,900 to 2,700 pounds. The heaviest shell was the AP (armor piercing) projectile, which had a maximum range 42,345 yards from the 16"/50 gun, or 39,000 yards from the 16"/45 gun (about 22 miles).

16" Battleship Gun Facts

I stand corrected. My belief was established in Hanger 1 on Treasure Island where ordinance was on display. The projectiles each had a sign giving the distance of a number of projectiles. The one I referenced made the claim that along with the 40 mile range, it included the number of silk bags of powder.

In my research I learned the projectiles I put into the breach (the 5" gun) had a range of nine miles.

 

[Boo Radley]

You simply don't understand the concepts and appeal to ignorance.

The People are the Militia. Our Second Amendment clearly states what is Necessary to the Security of a free State and it is most definitely not, the whole and entire People.

I believe I do understand. And I give the dictionary definition, and note the changes in how we operate today versus then. Then, you were called on as a citizen militia to fight an enemy. Today, you are called and go and have the weapons given to you. You are required to have your own. It is not the same as the founding fathers envisioned it. Things do change after 200 years. And likely, as they would see the changes, learn from them, the founding fathers might change their views as well. Nothing stays fixed forever. I merely suggest it is time to resee the amendment. And perhaps, re-write so it is clear today. No matter how clear you think it is, we have plenty of evidence that it is not clear to others. And the argument present above simply won't convince.

 

[Harshaw]

I believe I do understand. And I give the dictionary definition, and note the changes in how we operate today versus then. Then, you were called on as a citizen militia to fight an enemy. Today, you are called and go and have the weapons given to you. You are required to have your own. It is not the same as the founding fathers envisioned it. Things do change after 200 years. And likely, as they would see the changes, learn from them, the founding fathers might change their views as well. Nothing stays fixed forever. I merely suggest it is time to resee the amendment. And perhaps, re-write so it is clear today. No matter how clear you think it is, we have plenty of evidence that it is not clear to others. And the argument present above simply won't convince.

They would be even more convinced today of its necessity.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe I do understand. And I give the dictionary definition, and note the changes in how we operate today versus then. Then, you were called on as a citizen militia to fight an enemy. Today, you are called and go and have the weapons given to you. You are required to have your own. It is not the same as the founding fathers envisioned it. Things do change after 200 years. And likely, as they would see the changes, learn from them, the founding fathers might change their views as well. Nothing stays fixed forever. I merely suggest it is time to resee the amendment. And perhaps, re-write so it is clear today. No matter how clear you think it is, we have plenty of evidence that it is not clear to others. And the argument present above simply won't convince.

From my perspective, all you have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[Boo Radley]

They would be even more convinced today of its necessity.

I seriously doubt that. They would have a hard time dealing with the carnage.

 

[Boo Radley]

From my perspective, all you have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

You would be wrong from any perspective. I'm not sure how to get past this, but I would read what I wrote again.

 

[Harshaw]

I seriously doubt that. They would have a hard time dealing with the carnage.

Right. The carnage to the tune of 100 million dead at the hands of their own governments in the 20th century.

 

[danielpalos]

You would be wrong from any perspective. I'm not sure how to get past this, but I would read what I wrote again.

Why should I care? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[Marco Montana]

The 13 people that would are Communists! Might as well vote away the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 15th too!

 

[danielpalos]

There can be no such Thing as well regulated or organized Private militia in our Republic.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Article 1, Section 24 Washington State Constitution

 

[BahamaBob]

The comments in this thread are proof that the Second Amendment is more necessary now than ever. There are many people out there who believe they should decide what rights are necessary. Not so strange that most of these people are also from the same party that thought Blacks should be slaves. We all see their idea of a fair trial is with the Kavanaugh and Trump clown shows. Does anyone doubt that this wouldn't be the standard if they had power?

What do you think the second right they would take away would be? After all anyone disagreeing with them is obviously dangerous. Or perhaps due process. Why do you need due process, when you have a more important agenda?

Those of us who are versed in history know this is the standard format for tyrants. First you remove the ability to resist. After than anything goes.

 

[Alfons]

I've been engaging with a poster that believes the 2a should be repealed. So, what say you? Would you vote to repeal the 2nd amendment? yes or no

Only due to the Second Amendment the US is still a free country and is not hijacked by high core commies like Germany or Scandinavia.
Leftists first disarm peoples than kill them. Just remember 300m innocent victims of liberal ( sorry, socialist ) terror in many countries before.

Liberalism-Socialism kills

 

[danielpalos]

Only due to the Second Amendment the US is still a free country and is not hijacked by high core commies like Germany or Scandinavia.
Leftists first disarm peoples than kill them. Just remember 300m innocent victims of liberal ( sorry, socialist ) terror in many countries before.

Liberalism-Socialism kills

lol. Only because the right wing only knows how to appeal to ignorance of the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

We have a First Amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

lol. Only because the right wing only knows how to appeal to ignorance of the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

We have a First Amendment.

More bot speak. that has no relevance to his point

 

[danielpalos]

More bot speak. that has no relevance to his point

Our First Amendment applies First, not Second.