A question and a challenge.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

That is an interpretation and not the amendment. A court of crazy leftists could interpret it to mean all crazy leftists get guns. The words are still same after 230 years.

Barley there is no law that's going to stop someone from pulling this shit. I agree that the left wing kooks coming up with all this bullshit has got to drive the RW loons crazy. I really don't think there is an answer. Banning guns aint going to do it. Hell more Bloods and Crips have been killed than all the American deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by themystic

Barley there is no law that's going to stop someone from pulling this shit. I agree that the left wing kooks coming up with all this bullshit has got to drive the RW loons crazy. I really don't think there is an answer. Banning guns aint going to do it. Hell more Bloods and Crips have been killed than all the American deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan

Truth! See Mystic can get serious!

[themystic]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Truth! See Mystic can get serious!

Thanks WD. As a middle of the road liberal I get sick of the far left bullshit too. Taking away guns would create a civil war, seriously. The FBI studies these shooters and they cant figure them out. Despite what Trump try's to say the FBI are some smart fuckers with lots of resources.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

The 2nd Amendment has been altered multiple times since its inception. This was done to reflect changes in society evolving. Not many out there who say totally ban guns. RWL go ahead and list the handful of politicians who want to totally ban guns

No. The 2nd Amendment has never been altered.

Originally Posted by papadee

6. A closer look at the 2nd Amendment. The first 3 words, "a well regulated..." implies regulations or laws. We have to decide if that only applies to militias or gun owners in general.
And more importantly, why is the 2nd Amendment the only one interpreted by federal, state, and local laws? All the other Amendments are federal in scope. TX can't have different 1st Amendments rights than CA. Your 5th Amendments rights are the same across the US. Why is the 2nd different?

The right to own a gun is not predicated on belonging to a militia. Except for the 10th Amendment, the Bill of Rights is manifestly a list of INDIVIDUAL rights not to be screwed with by the federal government, and the 14th Amendment extended that preemption to state governments. A cursory review of the Founding Father's intent illustrates that the right to own guns is an individual right, and that right was reaffirmed in D.C. vs Heller.

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Wrong. Its's been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest but not altered. Please use google in the future so you won't look like a fucking retard. Thank you.

+1

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

since no one owns an assault rifle, problem solved! when will you libtards understand that only full-auto weapons are assault rifles? only police forces and the military have them.

until the liberals back off this false claim gun owners will resist any attempt to regulate "assault-like" rifles.

the language of the 2nd amendment has never been altered. not one word. in case you didn't know that requires a constitutional amendment. in fact, no amendment has been altered, only new amendments ratified.

exactly. how convenient would it be for the Government to have a list of every gun owner if they suddenly wanted to confiscate guns? quite convenient!

this is exactly how a police state operates. the US is not a police state .. yet. and i for one want to prevent such a state from ever existing.

as part of the law, the FBI cannot retain prior data of background checks. and the NICS system is not mandatory. some pesky little thing called the 10th amendment so State participation is voluntary. only 30 states contribute to the NICS data now.

+1

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

That is an interpretation and not the amendment. A court of crazy leftists could interpret it to mean all crazy leftists get guns. The words are still same after 230 years.

+1

[themystic]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No. The 2nd Amendment has never been altered.


The right to own a gun is not predicated on belonging to a militia. Except for the 10th Amendment, the Bill of Rights is manifestly a list of INDIVIDUAL rights not to be screwed with by the federal government, and the 14th Amendment extended that preemption to state governments.




+1




+1




+1

Thanks IB. Does Lollipop Hankering have a gun?

[papadee]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The right to own a gun is not predicated on belonging to a militia. Except for the 10th Amendment, the Bill of Rights is manifestly a list of INDIVIDUAL rights not to be screwed with by the federal government, and the 14th Amendment extended that preemption to state governments. A cursory review of the Founding Father's intent illustrates that the right to own guns is an individual right, and that right was reaffirmed in D.C. vs Heller.

In all of that, you ignored those first 3 words. How do you interpret "well regulated"?

[themystic]

Originally Posted by papadee

I'll try. First off I have no plans/ideas on what to do about the guns already in circulation. That's something I think about, so my ideas begin with all new guns.


1. Ban the importation of guns. If we're going to shoot each other, at least give jobs to Americans. Foreign gunmakers can build factories in the US.


2. All guns will have ID chips instead of serial numbers. It's the 21st century, why are we using late 19th/early 20th century tools? Make the guns eaiser to trace to the point of sale. If a gun sold in Ohio is used in a crime in Oregon, I want to know how it got there. Was it reported stolen? Sold? Put pressure on the OBs (Original Buyers) to become more responsible.


3. Restrict gun purchases for repeat offenders of #2. If you have straw buyers/street sellers/"lost or stolen" guns that end up in crimes, the OB has 2 strikes then is barred from buying more.


4. A 10 year rotating national gun check. Every 10 years, you bring your guns in, scan them, and you're back home. If you have 5 registered and only bring in 3, then you should have evidence of what happened to the other 2. Do it alphabetically, A-C, D-F, etc.


5. A commission (I know, bureaucracy) to study how legal guns become illegal. Almost all guns enter the US as legal, and are originally sold as legal. But after the initial sale, what happens? Theft? Straw buyer? Who's selling guns to the wrong people?


6. A closer look at the 2nd Amendment. The first 3 words, "a well regulated..." implies regulations or laws. We have to decide if that only applies to militias or gun owners in general.
And more importantly, why is the 2nd Amendment the only one interpreted by federal, state, and local laws? All the other Amendments are federal in scope. TX can't have different 1st Amendments rights than CA. Your 5th Amendments rights are the same across the US. Why is the 2nd different?


So those are my ideas. Not sure if it would stop gun violence, especially because they don't address the guns already in circulation.

That was some good stuff Papa. I don't think it would stop anything but it might stop a little. When the FBI cant figure it out its kind of a lost cause. I would make sure IB doesn't have a gun. Hes a loon

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by papadee

In all of that, you ignored those first 3 words. How do you interpret "well regulated"?

It is not for you or me to define "well regulated". What did the founders mean when they enacted the Bill of Rights? There was no standing army. Each state contributed to a national cause. But there was no state run national guard like today. A militia was considered to be every able bodied man between 16 and 46. They were expected to provide their own weapon, ammunition, and basic requirements of survival. Did they drill together? That was up to the town or village from whence they came.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by papadee

In all of that, you ignored those first 3 words. How do you interpret "well regulated"?

You ignore the intent of the Founding Fathers altogether:

"... the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press." - Thomas Jefferson

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry

Originally Posted by themystic

That was some good stuff Papa. I don't think it would stop anything but it might stop a little. When the FBI cant figure it out its kind of a lost cause. I would make sure IB doesn't have a gun. Hes a loon

All of the loons are on the left.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You ignore the intent of the Founding Fathers altogether:

Jefferson wanted Freedom of Religion unless they were Muslims named Omar

Jefferson wanted Freedom of Press unless Trump called the press the enemy of the people

You might want to do some research on that

Btw- I issued a Red Flag Alert on You for being a RW Loon

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Okay, we had another mass shooting (I'm not talking about a weekend in Chicago) and the finger pointing starts. Here is the question; if you could have one wish what would you do to STOP gun violence. Here is the challenge; imagine no law exists on gun control and you get to write the ultimate legislative package. You cannot violate constitutional protections. You cannot deprive people of their property if lawfully owned. You cannot deprive people of any other right without due process.
That is your mission.

From what you wrote, you have to empower the people. Give Law Abiding citizen the confidence to carry a firearm. This can be achieved by offering comprehensive firearm training designed to defeat a formidable foe who is an active shooter. Training should be realistic and affordable. Most firearm training people receive doesn't emphasize survival it's just simple marksmanship that's simply not enough. This is really the only way based on what your thread entails.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You ignore the intent of the Founding Fathers altogether:

All of the loons are on the left.

So now the intent of the founding fathers matter more than what they actually wrote in the Constitution? It seems they intended for our arms to be well regulated.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

It is not for you or me to define "well regulated". What did the founders mean when they enacted the Bill of Rights? There was no standing army. Each state contributed to a national cause. But there was no state run national guard like today. A militia was considered to be every able bodied man between 16 and 46. They were expected to provide their own weapon, ammunition, and basic requirements of survival. Did they drill together? That was up to the town or village from whence they came.

I guess it's up to the Supreme Court to define "well regulated". But we're here to discuss the meaning of that phrase.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

Jefferson wanted Freedom of Religion unless they were Muslims named Omar

Jefferson wanted Freedom of Press unless Trump called the press the enemy of the people

You might want to do some research on that

Btw- I issued a Red Flag Alert on You for being a RW Loon

I already did the research. Jefferson carried his own abridged copy of the Christian Bible. Jefferson used his influence to have certain louts in the press subjected to legal actions for lying. Everyone knows you're a left wing loon; hence, your feeble lies are being ignored.

Originally Posted by papadee

So now the intent of the founding fathers matter more than what they actually wrote in the Constitution? It seems they intended for our arms to be well regulated.

You'd be the one not understanding what was wrote because you are being willfully ignorant of the Founding Father's intent and you're ignoring that the whole of the first nine amendments were specifically addressing INDIVIDUAL rights -- not government prerogatives.

Originally Posted by papadee

I guess it's up to the Supreme Court to define "well regulated". But we're here to discuss the meaning of that phrase.

The Supreme Court already reexamined the Founding Father's intent and ruled that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I already did the research. Jefferson carried his own abridged copy of the Christian Bible. Jefferson used his influence to have certain louts in the press subjected to legal actions for lying. Everyone knows you're a left wing loon; hence, your feeble lies are being ignored.


You'd be the one not understanding what was wrote because you are being willfully ignorant of the Founding Father's intent and you're ignoring that the whole of the first nine amendments were specifically addressing INDIVIDUAL rights -- not government prerogatives.


The Supreme Court already reexamined the Founding Father's intent and ruled that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right.

The issue isn't individual rights, it's how those rights can be regulated. 1st Amendment - can't yell fire, etc. We already know there are regulations on the 2nd. So I don't know why you keep yelling "individual rights" when that wasn't the focus.