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.
Supreme Court justices die and are replaced, and with a Dem inn office for the foreseeable future, we'll see about that.
AFAIK, there weren't AK-47s in 1787, were there? There were muskets, and cannons. And most people who had guns used them for food acquisition. not to mow down children, not to bust into schools and kill kids.
And this ban, to probably a lesser degree than I would like, will happen and you can blame all of the lies and all of the bullying gun nuts have inflicted on this nation for decades. Had you guys been reasonable, had you been sane, a compromise could have been worked out. Too late for that.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole of debating guns, and I don't have to because this will all be settled in what I believe is in the best interests of society when we replace two or three fossils in robes. And there ain't jack you or anyone can do to stop it. Apart from electing a Republican, and that just ain't gonna happen. "See you in court," as they say!
You sound like a pouty child. I'm half expecting you to break in to tears and run from the room, wailing about the "meanies" who said "mean things".
You don't even know what an AK 47 is. You don't even know what an assault rifle looks like. You don't have a clue about guns.
This has been discussed multiple times, and you are not sending any new message, giving off any wise or sage advise, nor are you coming up with anything clever or thought provoking.
You're merely throwing a tantrum in front of everyone in the living room. Maybe you need a nap.
Didn't say that. I believe the original intent in Philadelphia in 1787 has been perverted and that the original intent was for a, Uh, "a well regulated militia," which you as an individual are not,. You aren't. So rather than changing the meaning, it's getting back to the original intent.
No one could have dreamed of assault weapons back then. No one. And if you have proof that they could have or did recognize that, cite it.
Well, like I said, you guys had your chance to be reasonable and instead you went all "ballistic" and pushed too far. I'm very sorry but there's no unringing of that bell.
Agenda? What agenda do I have? I don't believe people should have guns; that's not an agenda, it's a belief.
Attempting or wishing to force that belief on others is an agenda.
What gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters are concerned about is that those who argue for law-born answers to the 'gun violence epidemic' do not concern themselves with the following:
If passing a law was the answer to solving a problem, why do people still murder? Do you think that some gangbanger or person with a death wish cares about the tacked on consequences that the laws against certain types of firearms can provide a prosecutor with AFTER the murder(s) have been carried out? Because in the gangbanger's case, he's already facing a life sentence (if we're lucky) or the death penalty (fat chance in some places). Unless the penalty for using, say, an AR-15 or a 'high capacity' magazine includes chopping off said convict's hands before sending them to prison, just what does an extra 10 years on a life sentence do to deter the murder in the first place? (Let's not forget the liberal desire to let them out early for 'good behavior.')
Because that's what you want, what we all want, right? We want to STOP the killing BEFORE it happens. So how does passing another law that won't be obeyed by anyone determined to commit murder help?
What people like AlfieBoy seem to relish is the thought of some well-armed and staffed ATF task force capable to rolling door to door, committing the very same civil right violations that they protest our police doing when hunting for real threats. Never once do people like AlfieBoy think about sending the ATF and police into the criminal dens and the gang safe houses to confiscate THEIR weapons. No, they hit the houses of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who wasn't going to commit any murder nor carry out any crimes with their firearms. But since they are good people and dutiful citizens, they turn them over. Meanwhile, the bad guys who don't register their guns, certainly don't care about the law, and are now emboldened by disarmed targets, hit Mr. and Mrs. Jones house at night and do heinous things. AlfieBoy and his ilk get to offer the same prayers they accuse the "evil" NRA of passing out after people the NRA does NOT support kill innocent people. They also get to add it to the "gun violence" statistics.
Another parting thought: why is it that so many liberals denounce the "war on drugs?" They say it doesn't work (which I am actually in agreement with, even though I'd like drugs wiped off the face of the planet, people are always going to want to get high, and will simply find something else) and they get pissy when drug raids are carried out against "unlicensed pharmacists." How is it not a stretch to imagine the same activity being massaged into a "war on guns?" Oh, because it's in the Constitution? The same 2nd Amendment so many salivate at ripping up?
The concept of compromise is often lost during the gun control debate; the pro-gun control side talks compromise, but gives nothing in return, save "oh, you get to keep one of your guns that we deem 'acceptable.'" That's not compromise.
I have NO problem with universal background checks, as long as that database is NOT controlled by potential confiscators. Demand background checks at every venue, gun show, gun store, etc. Happy? Oh wait... how will you make sure Johnny Lowrider goes through a background check when he buys one off his homie in an alley, or steals one from someone's safe, or kills a rival and takes their already-illegal gun?
Oh, and that whole "penis substitute" jab some of you like to make? You realize many men who've risked life and limb to defend others while in uniform own and use firearms when they become civilians. Are these brave souls compensating for something? What snide remark do you have for the millions of women in the USA who own and use firearms for protection? Should they just... teach others not to harm, or men not to rape?
critical thinking skills are not the strong suit of anti 2nd amendment folks. all they do is parrot back talking points. they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
1. the first automatic weapon was made is 1718
2. Well regulated meant "in good working order" it was common to describe a clock the kept time as "well regulated"
3. A militia is all able bodied men.
4. A well regulated militia mean "well trained citizens".
Now that we got all of that cleared up, I would love to hear your thoughts about how the first amendment only protects a Gutenberg printing press and how all other forms of media and publication that were not invented by 1789 are not included.
Okay, as I said posts ago, I'm not going down this tired rabbit hole --- been there before and the argument expressed on your side is so odd that I just don't want to waste my energy -- again -- in fighting it on an internet forum. So needless to say, I reject your thinking.
Moving on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Technology evolution had nothing to do to affect the First Amendment. This Amendment is not interpretable or subject to technology that couldn't have been or even could have been predicted: whether debates are in Cooper Union or via satellite, they are debates. Whether religion is expressed in person or via a podcast, it is still the exercise of religion.
Okay, as I said posts ago, I'm not going down this tired rabbit hole --- been there before and the argument expressed on your side is so odd that I just don't want to waste my energy -- again -- in fighting it on an internet forum. So needless to say, I reject your thinking.
Moving on...
Technology evolution had nothing to do to affect the First Amendment. This Amendment is not interpretable or subject to technology that couldn't have been or even could have been predicted: whether debates are in Cooper Union or via satellite, they are debates. Whether religion is expressed in person or via a podcast, it is still the exercise of religion.
So, you think that advances in technology shouldn't have any effect on the first ammendment but they should have a major effect on the second ammendment.
Didn't say that. I believe the original intent in Philadelphia in 1787 has been perverted ....
What do you think the intent was of the PA Constitution passed in 1776?
Quote:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Amended in 1790 and current:
Quote:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
These bookend the US Constitution and were authored by many of the the same men who helped write the US Constitution.
Bob you're position seems to be that there should be no laws concerning gun ownership and any one who wants one should have one?You also seem to be implying its only liberals that are advocating some common sense restrictions on firearms and you take that to mean liberals are taking every ones guns away?
I think some laws are justified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la..._United_States
jambo,
Your position seems to be putting words in my mouth.
Just because I call out extremists on one side who want too many laws, way beyond the spirit and intention of the 2nd amendment, doesn't mean that I think there should be no laws at all.
Diane Feinstein made a statement several years ago about guns and that's worthy of a thread?
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.
