Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ridiculous. there's plenty of proof that shows that second amendment was in no way speaking about giving people the right to own a personal weapon.
The supreme court is a highly educated group of people and very versed in constitutional law. However the supreme court is also highly political. The decisions of today's supreme court does not in any way prevent me from disagreeing with their interpretation of what madison etc meant when they wrote the second amendment 225 years ago.
Plenty of people disagree with that statement... including people in the very same institution (the supreme court) that you used to call me ignorant. The decision in this case was far from unanimous.
It's obvious that the way you consider supreme court rulings as infallible and somehow capable of being able to read the minds of people who died 200 years ago, that it is yourself that is showing their ignorance.
So where do you get your legal guidance from on the U.S Constitution? God?.
Unanimous votes of SCOTUS is not a legal argument concerning the Constitution. That is why there is more than one Justice. Oh yeah as defined by the Constitution. Again your ignorance of the facts is showing.
BTW did you read the links I provided to you in your quest to be educated?
The majority of citizens in the nation, as well as the Supreme Court, disagree with you.
Wow.. I don't even know what to say... Well, I do, but it would draw the wrath of the mods.
I'll just say this: How do you think average people "at the time" put food on the table each day?
Considering your lack of understanding of guns, the laws surrounding them (including the one this topic was started to discuss), and shooting sports in general, I can't waste any more time bantering about this with you. Your opinions are cast in concrete, despite the fact (yes, fact) that you have no clue about anything related to guns or the laws pertaining to them. I have work to do, and if your ignorance is as boundless as it seems, my time is going to be better spent working than trying to get you to face reality.
Not everyone lived on the frontier or on farms. Just about EVERYONE in a developed area DID NOT own a gun. Why do you think the gunpowder incident was such a big deal? Why do you think that the minutemen were so concerned when the British moved to take over the militia's supplies of guns and ammo?
If people in the 18th century were so armed to the teeth why would they care? After all everyone had a gun and munitions at home right?
Unbelievable that you call me ignorant and then try to tell me that everyone in America had a gun at this time.
This is beyond false. Even those in rural areas did not often own their own guns. Communities would share the ownership of guns just as they'd share in the ownership of plows and other necessary tools that were too cost prohibitive for every single person to own.
To imply that the everyone needed a gun to put food on the table is just unbelievably ignorant. People got their food from livestock and farms... not hunting wild sport. Only a minority got their food in such a manner. And of that minority that actually hunted for their own food a great deal of them trapped it and hunted with less expensive weapons.
Again I really can't believe that someone calls me ignorant and then tries to tell me that in 1787 everyone in America owned a gun. RIDICULOUS.
I may be ignorant of gun culture (gladly). But I am not at all ignorant of gun laws, the constitution or the circumstances surrounding the creation of the second amendment. In fact it is you who seems to be ignorant of these things.
So where do you get your legal guidance from on the U.S Constitution? God?.
Unanimous votes of SCOTUS is not a legal argument concerning the Constitution. That is why there is more than one Justice. Oh yeah as defined by the Constitution. Again your ignorance of the facts is showing.
BTW did you read the links I provided to you in your quest to be educated?
No I read buddy. Something most gun lovers probably wouldn't be very familiar with.
For the record (and to point out your method of operation to the rest of the readers), I have no desire to own multiple automatic rifles, and I never said that I did. In fact, I haven't made a single reference to them.
More ignorance, this time coupled with assumptions and lies.
Way to go, champ.
never said you did. I said that's fine IF you want to.
Again still not a single response from anyone about WHY ANYONE WOULD.
No I read buddy. Something most gun lovers probably wouldn't be very familiar with.
Ad hom. You lose.
And please cite your credentials as an early American historian, Constitutional lawyer, and/or statistician. Because so far all we have seen is unfounded, unsourced, frothy-mouthed hoplophobe platitudes.
No I read buddy. Something most gun lovers probably wouldn't be very familiar with.
Read what? Tell me where this information that you have studied resides regarding your scholarly knowledge of the 2nd amendment. Obviously you have more knowledge concerning the Historical basis of the Constitution than the Majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court with which you disagree.
Educate me, I promise to read any link from a Doctorate level scholar and above that you post.
To anyone that thinks that the Constitution doesn't give individuals the right to own and carry guns:
# links -dump http://usconstitution.net/const.html | grep -i people
* [82]Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. [235]Ratified 12/15/1791.
or to the people.
each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator
people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Besides the selection from the 2nd Amendment, which of the above mentions of "people" in the Constitution refers to someone/something other than those that make up the general population? Just curious why you think that "the people" means one thing throughout the document, but means something completely different in the 2nd Amendment.
Now that is one helluva proof of what dictators of all stripes like. The best of all the pictures is the one of Mussolini, with his jutting lower jaw, that looks so much like many of Our Glorious Leader.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
