gun control nuts

One must remember that in those days the states were more independent from the "centralized" government than they are today. We may start edging back to that philosophy with the current administration.



It wasn't until the late 1800's and early 1900's that the SCOTUS started applying the "Bill of Rights" to the States, which is one reason the States had their own "Bill of Rights" (as Texas does). In 1824 the Bill of Rights was only applied to the Federal Government which was the ruling of the SCOTUS after 1824. I suspect without taking an inventory the states not including a "right to bear arms" were in the area of the "New England" states. In the more rural areas with ranching and farming firearms were a necessity of survival. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Now that I can agree with.

Are you kidding? How is "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" Vague and open to interpretation?
Originally Posted by garhkal

No the question is "Are YOU kidding?"

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/lingu...ond-amendment/

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...amendment-mess

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steph...b_2486477.html

http://www.howardischwartz.com/a-rig...ond-amendment/

http://www.wisegeek.org/why-is-the-s...#didyouknowout

http://www.spectacle.org/996/2d.html

http://www.123helpme.com/assets/17405.html

The court has agreed with my POV in most cases. Weapons like the M-16 and AK-47 can't be sold. States are allowed to enact gun laws as they see fit, and people can contest those laws in a court of law. Personally I think the court system has done a rather good job of balancing 2nd Amendment rights with what I believe are logical restrictions.

I'm sorry if I have to 'splain these FACTS to you. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The FACTs were 'splained to you and your ignorant ilk, speedy, because the words of the Founding Fathers were always quite clear.

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." Samuel Adams, 1788.

The FACTs were 'splained to you and your ignorant ilk, speedy, because the words of the Founding Fathers were always quite clear. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I've said it to you in the past several times. It doesn't really matter what the intent of the Founding Fathers was way back when. The 2nd Amendment does not say what you want it to say. It doesn't matter what YOU think the 2nd Amendment says. It doesn't matter what I think the 2nd Amendment says. States are allowed to make laws enacting gun control measures and people have the right to take the state to court if they believe that the laws violate the 2nd Amendment. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose.

The problem is that the 2nd Amendment is so vague and open to interpretation. It wasn't until fairly recently that SCOTUS determined that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals. i agree that it will never be removed. But congress, SCOTUS and other courts have made rulings that limit 2nd Amendment rights. Some weapons are banned. not everyone can own a gun. A person can't carry a gun everywhere he or she might want to. Most states require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun.

The limitations on 2nd Amendment rights are not severe in my opinion. There will always be those that want no limitations. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

2A is not as absolute as 1A, but it's pretty damn absolute by itself.

The point of it was to be a check against a standing army. The founders didn't want us to have to fend off an oppressive army with only our swinging dicks.

What good would the ammendment to arm us against the army be, if a government before it sent it's army in, could just make laws to remove our guns?

Gun Control = Using Both Hands.

I've said it to you in the past several times. It doesn't really matter what the intent of the Founding Fathers was way back when. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It may not "matter" to you, but it does to the U.S.Supreme Court, and lower courts who interpret the "Bill of Rights" and other laws.

That is why conservatives prefer "strict constructionists."

The "vagueness" of the amendments anticipated changes in our society and the SCOTUS has recognized the "morphing" of our society and crafting exceptions to the general rules to meet those changes and the new circumstances created by them.

A less controversial example is the 4th amendment for which the SCOTUS crafted exceptions to meet the urgent circumstances that arise making obtaining a search warrant impractical and sometimes allowing warrantless searches as being less "intrusive" than detaining someone while a warrant is obtained. Our mobile, vehicular society was not addressed "back then."

Firearms provide a more deadly concern and reasonable regulations have been allowed to clarify and restrict access to firearms with regard to people and places that create a particular danger and/or threat: felons for one such group.. and if you notice the restrictions on "handguns" are different from those of "long guns" very often. (My neighbors might be alarmed seeing me carry a shotgun down the street, but it's not against the last law in Texas (or if it is it's a very recent development!). One might do some "historical" research to determine if there were establishments and circumstances in which and for which firearms were not allowed back in the late 1770's and early 1800's.

And when the SCOTUS looks at elements of the Constitution AND/OR its amendments that have to do with prohibitions against government intrusions upon God given rights, the burden is upon those who wish to intrude upon them to demonstrate that it is necessary to interfere with them, not the other way around. Again, why conservatives prefer "strict constructionists" as judges.

No the question is "Are YOU kidding?"

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/lingu...ond-amendment/

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...amendment-mess

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steph...b_2486477.html

http://www.howardischwartz.com/a-rig...ond-amendment/

http://www.wisegeek.org/why-is-the-s...#didyouknowout

http://www.spectacle.org/996/2d.html

http://www.123helpme.com/assets/17405.html Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Are you citing news/Op-Ed articles for scholarly legal support?

I've said it to you in the past several times. It doesn't really matter what the intent of the Founding Fathers was way back when. The 2nd Amendment does not say what you want it to say. It doesn't matter what YOU think the 2nd Amendment says. It doesn't matter what I think the 2nd Amendment says. States are allowed to make laws enacting gun control measures and people have the right to take the state to court if they believe that the laws violate the 2nd Amendment. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It does matter what the Founding Fathers intended, speedy. They wrote the Constitution; so, what they intended is entirely relevant, you lying SOB, and the court 'splained that to your ignorant ass.

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

It does matter what the Founding Fathers intended, speedy. They wrote the Constitution; so, what they intended is entirely relevant, you lying SOB, and the court 'splained that to your ignorant ass. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Probably not "ignorant," but just "misguided."

As for the "purpose" of the 2nd amendment ... at one time the court actually pointed to the original purpose ... and not some convoluted redefinition to restrict its application ...

See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 307 U. S. 178 (1939)

(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia')"

Before commenting one might want to read it several times.

Such a statement would justify the possession of automatic weapons using the "morphing" analysis of those suggesting an opposition to possession of "military" style weapons.

In other words: "a well regulated militia" today would have in its possession .... automatic weapons .... so the 2nd amendment would mandate the U.S. citizen have possession of a weapon with

"some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia')

In other words ... fight fire with fire and automatic weapons with automatic weapons.

Probably not "ignorant," but just "misguided."

As for the "purpose" of the 2nd amendment ... at one time the court actually pointed to the original purpose ... and not some convoluted redefinition to restrict its application ...

See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 307 U. S. 178 (1939)



Before commenting one might want to read it several times.

Such a statement would justify the possession of automatic weapons using the "morphing" analysis of those suggesting an opposition to possession of "military" style weapons.

In other words: "a well regulated militia" today would have in its possession .... automatic weapons .... so the 2nd amendment would mandate the U.S. citizen have possession of a weapon with

"some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia')

In other words ... fight fire with fire and automatic weapons with automatic weapons. Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Mendacious" would be the better word. While there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to guarantee individual gun ownership, anti-gun clowns like speedy intentionally misread the 2nd Amendment to advance their anti-gun agenda.

While there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to guarantee individual gun ownership, anti-gun clowns like speedy intentionally misread the 2nd Amendment to advance their anti-gun agenda. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I have no problem with them reading the 2nd Amendment (or any others) how ever they wish to apply them to themselves, but I'm really not interested in their hair brain interpretations to apply them to me.

What's that saying about "cold, dead hands"?

Government should not interfere with their sexual proclivities with the same sex so long as all are consenting adults, and government shouldn't interfere with my desire to protect myself and anyone else around while the police are coming!!!!

What's that saying: Tried by 12 vs. carried by 6?

As a follow up for "intent" ....

An examination of the Colonial statutes reveals that, contrary to Bellesiles‟s claim of distrusted and disarmed freemen, almost all colonies required white adult men to possess firearms and ammunition. Some of these statutes were explicit that militiamen were to keep their guns at home; others imply the requirement, by specifying fines for failing to bring guns to musters or church. Colonies that did not explicitly require firearms ownership passed laws requiring the carrying of guns under circumstances that implied nearly universal ownership.

http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/F...regulation.pdf

I didn't read the whole thing, but it rebukes some of the "scholarly" anecdotes about the beginnings.

"Mendacity" really doesn't capture "the flavor" of some of the dialogue and accusations on here ... like "lying POS" DOES!

These fuckers are totally insane.

More guns = more deaths.

Period. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Some people just need killing. You are a prime example. Make sure to drink the koolaid bitch.

In other words: "a well regulated militia" today would have in its possession .... automatic weapons .... so the 2nd amendment would mandate the U.S. citizen have possession of a weapon with

"some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia')

In other words ... fight fire with fire and automatic weapons with automatic weapons. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Strange then, that most "Militias" out there, get consistently checked by the BAFTA and FBI and some are seen as domestic terror groups..

Strange then, that most "Militias" out there, get consistently checked by the BAFTA and FBI and some are seen as domestic terror groups.. Originally Posted by garhkal

There again, you are attempting to "assign" a "modern day" meaning to a word crafted over 200 years ago. In the context of those days the "militia" was more like the National Guard ... with a call to arms if necessary ... by the government to quell domestic unrest.

As you know, I'm sure, "the Guard" is oldest military "organization" in this country, like the Texas Rangers is the oldest "law enforcement agency" in the country.

There again, you are attempting to "assign" a "modern day" meaning to a word crafted over 200 years ago. In the context of those days the "militia" was more like the National Guard ... with a call to arms if necessary ... by the government to quell domestic unrest.

As you know, I'm sure, "the Guard" is oldest military "organization" in this country, like the Texas Rangers is the oldest "law enforcement agency" in the country. Originally Posted by LexusLover

BRRRRRP wrong.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/history/oldest.htm

https://www.dps.texas.gov/TexasRange...evelopment.htm