U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-07-2015, 06:25 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,842,948 times
Reputation: 14280

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 94buickcentury View Post
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet. Since this thread is 17 pages long I am not going to search through them all for it, but just in case if it isn't mentioned yet, lets look at the Second Amendment shall we

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't get why people who use the Second Amendment to justify having no gun laws always skip the bolded part. Having guns is a privilege and not a right because for it to be a right, a group has to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Random people owning guns does not count as a well regulated militia. Using the Second Amendment as an excuse not to expand on gun laws makes you an imbecile no offense.
It does not say the right of the Militia.. It clearly says the right of the PEOPLE.
I am my own individual militia. Gun ownership is an individual right. Thus we would not be able to keep & bare if it were not.

Government has turned it into a privilege even though they have been told over and over HELL NO YOU AIN"T

Last edited by BentBow; 12-07-2015 at 06:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2015, 06:27 AM
 
Location: zooland 1
3,744 posts, read 3,421,158 times
Reputation: 5516
Ok...unemotionally
I would like to see a national carry law for everyone who wants to do so

The restriction would be a good ccw course

And as others have said...
No crooks
No one adjudicated mentally ill

I would like to see the application of existing laws
I would like to see Eric Holder in prison for his gun scheme
Rip Brian terry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 06:30 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,908 posts, read 10,085,293 times
Reputation: 7456
NONE!!!! NO MORE DAMN GUN LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR ATTEMPTING TO FURTHER RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO HAVE THE MEANS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,235 posts, read 14,062,226 times
Reputation: 5917
To those that believe banning AR's (Automatic Rifles), they are not Machine Guns, would make a difference I would point out the fact that while the last ban was in place Columbine happened anyway and that the rate of crime was not reduced in any measurable way and why nearly every Sheriffs office said the ban should be lifted. The vast majority of gun deaths are related the criminal activity and the use of handguns, most of whom were illegally in the hands of the perps, so no gun laws not already on the books would have made one iota of difference. I would also add the fact that the two terrorist's in Cal could have done exactly the same thing using hand guns, anyone that believe otherwise truly does not have a grasp on the capabilities of various types of guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 06:40 AM
 
36,989 posts, read 16,129,534 times
Reputation: 8410
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94buickcentury View Post
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet. Since this thread is 17 pages long I am not going to search through them all for it, but just in case if it isn't mentioned yet, lets look at the Second Amendment shall we

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't get why people who use the Second Amendment to justify having no gun laws always skip the bolded part. Having guns is a privilege and not a right because for it to be a right, a group has to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Random people owning guns does not count as a well regulated militia. Using the Second Amendment as an excuse not to expand on gun laws makes you an imbecile no offense.
Because YOUR interpretation has been DEBUNKED by the courts, by English professors and the readings of our Founding Fathers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 06:42 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,235 posts, read 14,062,226 times
Reputation: 5917
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I am my own individual militia. Gun ownership is an individual right. Thus we would not be able to keep & bare if it were not.

Government has turned it into a privilege even though they have been told over and over HELL NO YOU AIN"T
Wrong, by definition that that's at least two people, married, got kids, good friends have a Prep group formed? Any and all of those count, I have them all and that means we meet any definition of Militia one can come up with and thus meat any requirements under the Constitution
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 06:44 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,842,948 times
Reputation: 14280
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94buickcentury View Post
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet. Since this thread is 17 pages long I am not going to search through them all for it, but just in case if it isn't mentioned yet, lets look at the Second Amendment shall we

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't get why people who use the Second Amendment to justify having no gun laws always skip the bolded part. Having guns is a privilege and not a right because for it to be a right, a group has to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Random people owning guns does not count as a well regulated militia. Using the Second Amendment as an excuse not to expand on gun laws makes you an imbecile no offense.

These guys can explain it quite clearly in less than a minute. Why do you make it so difficult on yourself to understand?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 08:53 AM
 
32,496 posts, read 26,373,528 times
Reputation: 19148
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94buickcentury View Post
I don't know if someone mentioned this yet. Since this thread is 17 pages long I am not going to search through them all for it, but just in case if it isn't mentioned yet, lets look at the Second Amendment shall we

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't get why people who use the Second Amendment to justify having no gun laws always skip the bolded part. Having guns is a privilege and not a right because for it to be a right, a group has to be a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Random people owning guns does not count as a well regulated militia. Using the Second Amendment as an excuse not to expand on gun laws makes you an imbecile no offense.
ok, i will post this again for your education;

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

Quote:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
read and educate yourself before making the claims you do about the second amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Those lists are developed by the Federal Government and enforced by the Federal Government. Obviously this judge feels differently.

Yes there should be recourse but it's funny how when it comes to guns that is off limits but hardly a peep about restricting people from flying which much more punitive.


Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-noflylist-idUSKBN0EZ2EU20140625#7FHJGvtg73yBWvrf.99
the judge felt differently because she felt that the government overstepped its bounds with the no fly list not having any recourse for getting off after being mistakenly put on. but again remember there is no right to fly in this country, only to travel freely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I would much rather go without a gun for the next 5 years, make it 10.
right, you dont like guns, so you have no problem with not having one. so that would realy affect you now would it? no it needs to be something you have need of, and have the right to do, for instance speak freely, or the right to privacy.

would you be ok with the government barging into your abode at anytime of the day or night and searching the place whenever they wish, without a warrant? would you be willing to let the government prevent you from speaking? suppose you were arrested for a crime, and you were detained indefinitely, would that be ok with you? would you be ok with being questioned without an attorney present? would you be ok with being questioned for hours on end?

these are things an out of control government can do despite having the constitution. once you allow the government to overstep its bounds, it takes more and more away from the people, until the people decide enough is enough, and also decide that the voting booth is no longer the answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 09:16 AM
 
79,457 posts, read 33,670,997 times
Reputation: 15897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I would much rather go without a gun for the next 5 years, make it 10.
I'm sure you would.......it doesn't bother me to go without but you know that wasn't the point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2015, 09:20 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,842,948 times
Reputation: 14280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Wrong, by definition that that's at least two people, married, got kids, good friends have a Prep group formed? Any and all of those count, I have them all and that means we meet any definition of Militia one can come up with and thus meat any requirements under the Constitution

The original Militia act, defined that for all those unsure, who the militia was.
As the 2nd amendment says, each person is the militia.

The right of the people? You want it to mean a whole bunch of "people" have access to one gun? Or is it meant for one person to have access to many arms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top