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.
I take exception to the word "need". I do not "need" Iced sweet tea with a twist of lemon on a hot summer day but there are times when I WANT it. Hey I'm a southerner, I can’t help myself.
This argument about "need" is baseless.
I have a RIGHT under current law to own high capacity magazines. Period. If you want to change the law, then you need to show cause. Reason. Not some silly insipid baseless argument that I do not "need" them.
I have provided detailed statistics that show these guns in question and their high capacity magazines account for a very small total of the murders that take place in this country. I have heard the president suggest "if we could save one life". Well what we KNOW for a fact, based on FBI statistics and peer reviewed literature is that these same weapons are used THOUSANDS of times every year to thwart violent crime.
We KNOW these things. We also KNOW beyond knowing that the people who have done the worst shootings could have been treated, had we not changed our laws to prevent us from being able to commit mentally ill individuals before they kill. WE KNOW THIS. But instead of talking about that you want to argue that I don’t "need" something that as a law abiding citizen I have every right to own regardless of "need".
Before you start yelling "sandy hook", that shooter had in his possession about 4 weapons that were not assault weapons and did not have high capacity magazines. He could have done equal damage without the .223.
This argument is insulting to intelligent people. Need has NEVER been an part of the equation when discussing American FREEDOM. My liberty was purchased at far too high a price to squander it in an argument about what I may or may not “need”.
My God in Heaven we have become a nation of fools.
bumping this. Need is not part of the discussion.
those who seek to abridge freedom are the ones who "need" to give good reason why they do so.
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789, before the first militia act, so everyone is part of the militia as the founders wrote it. This is also backed up in the federalist papers as well as other documents from our founding.
Plus the militia act said that everyone is part of the militia and needed to provide their own arms.
"The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack"
So anyways, even if you feel they wrongly ruled, the only other option would be that we are all part of the militia, and thus we can own the same weapons individual soldiers use in warfare for the common defense.
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[131]"
No need to get silly, you can keep believing that SCOTUS will do a complete 180 because of a temporary uptick in gun control polling.
The reason the Militia Acts were enacted were because they wanted to DEFINE Militia, which they did. And they did it not just once, but several times. They didn't enact the Militia Acts because they were bored and didn't know what to do with their time. The Militia Acts do not refer to "individuals, each owning guns for fun and enjoyment." The Militia Acts are VERY SPECIFIC. The militias were a form of collective defense against outsiders. These Acts and the Second Amendment were not for some individual nutjob with a gun, pretending to be some sort of Clint Eastwood in a movie, and feeling his gonads somehow get larger thanks to the guns.
As for the SC, I have already explained to you that the SC does change rulings, but I don't feel the desire to explain it again. If you're not comprehending it, then it's your problem. My guess is that when the SC rules differently, you will flip and go completely nuts, whining about how it's "just not fair" or some such thing.
The reason the Militia Acts were enacted were because they wanted to DEFINE Militia, which they did. And they did it not just once, but several times. They didn't enact the Militia Acts because they were bored and didn't know what to do with their time. The Militia Acts do not refer to "individuals, each owning guns for fun and enjoyment." The Militia Acts are VERY SPECIFIC. The militias were a form of collective defense against outsiders. These Acts and the Second Amendment were not for some individual nutjob with a gun, pretending to be some sort of Clint Eastwood in a movie, and feeling his gonads somehow get larger thanks to the guns.
As for the SC, I have already explained to you that the SC does change rulings, but I don't feel the desire to explain it again. If you're not comprehending it, then it's your problem. My guess is that when the SC rules differently, you will flip and go completely nuts, whining about how it's "just not fair" or some such thing.
Last time I checked the legislator is not in the business of defining the meaning of the constitution. They have to work within the limits of the constitution. The constitution is to limit the power of government, not the people's.
Your going to waiting a long time for the SC to overthrow Heller. You can keep pontificating about how things are going to be different at some undetermined point in the future based on one SCOTUS overruling a past SCOTUS. I'll keep working under the assumption that the current SCOTUS ruling will stand. I wonder what arguments carry more weight?
The "maybe will have different legal precedent in the future so my opinions are valid" or
The "this is current legal precedent so my opinions are based on facts"
Good question, however, she has no clue what happens in slaughter house, I think, nooooooo I'm sure she thinks that steak just materializes out of the fart from a farmer, and that is what she eats.....it's just there, at the grocery store, every week, it is resupplied....
She'll answer this question with a question, or her own point of view, but in the end, you won't get a true answer....just wait and see....
Why is it necessary that I "get the hell out" of my own house? It is necessary that no one come into my house uninvited apart from law enforcement with a warrant. How do you round up everyone who is supposed to be in your house for an evacuation?
Some women ask these days "where are the MEN"? I am beginning to see their point.
Good question, however, she has no clue what happens in slaughter house, I think, nooooooo I'm sure she thinks that steak just materializes out of the fart from a farmer, and that is what she eats.....it's just there, at the grocery store, every week, it is resupplied....
She'll answer this question with a question, or her own point of view, but in the end, you won't get a true answer....just wait and see....
*chuckle*
Reminds me of the same fools that go on about truck drivers and how they want to ban them.
Yep, a 30-06. It bored the living daylights out of me. Why on earth anyone would be fascinated by guns, unless they have a killing wish, is beyond me. However, I learned just how deadly guns are by the damage the bullet did to the can I fired it at, and how efficient guns are for murdering.
A "killing wish?"
I carry a jack, but I don't wish for a flat tire.
"Fascinated by guns?"
Not so much; not really "fascinated" by any of my tools.
So you fired a rifle and were bored.
Ban everything you don't like...how typically "liberal."
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.
