Gun Legislation

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"

I borrowed that but would like to know the answer from any of you who feel it is alright to infringe others' rights.


Pols wet their fingers and put them in the wind after an incident or 3 of some awful senseless violence and react instead of acting. I say if we allow them to continue to erode the constitution like they have been getting away with, then I suppose we get what we deserve and we will either be serfs or die defending our rights. It really is that simple. It is not "gun violence" it is senseless violence.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...fles-kind/amp/ I understand that statistics mean nothing to liberals but find this intriguing

ban hammers why don't you

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state.

What do you mean by "real purpose"? And what do you mean by "the militia"?

Here is a selection of quotes including by those who were involved with the creation of the Second Amendment, and who actually know why they wrote it, what it's purpose is, and what is meant by "the militia." In short, it was meant to be the final, ultimate, resource of self defense, especially against the tyranny of one's own government. And "the militia" was the whole body of the people capable of bearing and using arms:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/t...is-says-it-all


The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..

The "very language" of the Second Amendment does not refute that "every citizen" who can bear and use arms and is capable of correctly and efficiently using them has a right to any arms that can be borne by one person.

[Slipknot]

I'll ask again

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I'll ask again

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what's your point?

Hamilton also proposed President for Life, Senators for Life and was viewed as a monarchist sympathizer....

"Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born". This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty."

According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "The English model was the only good one on this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad... Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."


I guess Hamilton would have been in favor of KING TRUMP

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

what's your point?

Hamilton also proposed President for Life, Senators for Life and was viewed as a monarchist sympathizer....

"Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born". This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty."

According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "The English model was the only good one on this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad... Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."


I guess Hamilton would have been in favor of KING TRUMP

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.

What’s yours?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.

What’s yours?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you adhere to everythingHamilton stood for PeteF ,or are you being selective again? Asking for a friend.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good one!...wtf?

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

of course, but that does not mean we should put up with bad laws that favor the power hungry rulers who sit on their butts and tell us how to live.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?answer a question with a question, typical. you have no answer

Why has government been instituted at all? So that a limited government can see to it that our natural rights can be exercised freelyBecause the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try answering with an answer

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

try answering with an answer
I'll ask again

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"

Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint, we enact laws that our elected officials feel are reasonable with the hope that our fellow Americans will obey them.

They do reduce behavior and actions that we find hazardous or objectionable, it is also obvious that laws don't absolutely prevent anything.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..

Wrong again, the mere ownership or choice of ownership of arms is supposed to protect all of us from a tyrannical government. But as you can see we are failing as they chip away at liberty with each breathe we take. Enough is enough.


of course you do, you are a Statist

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Wrong again, the mere ownership or choice of ownership of arms is supposed to protect all of us from a tyrannical government. But as you can see we are failing as they chip away at liberty with each breathe we take. Enough is enough.


of course you do, you are a Statist

I know your smarter than a supreme court justice.. NRA and your view just another example if you say it enough it must be true. https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-106856size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I know your smarter than a supreme court justice.. NRA and your view just another example if you say it enough it must be true. https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-106856size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Supreme Court Justices disagree with each other. So, I guess by your implication, some are smarter and others dumber. Supreme Court Justices have made vile or unconstitutional decisions, such as Dred Scott. The most important quality of a Supreme Court Justice, in my opinion, is fidelity to the Constitution. Justices who rule by various values of justice that come and go with generations, rather than by what the Constitution dictates, are the greatest enemies of the Constitution and our founding system of government.

SCOTUS Justices are not gods. They are fallible, all too human, sometimes vain and full of self-importance, or politically biased. Quoting one may tell more about you than the intelligence or constitutional fidelity of the judge. Read the Constitution for yourself. Stick to its words, not the opinions about those words other than the opinions of the founders who wrote it.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Read the Constitution for yourself. Stick to its words, not the opinions about those words other than the opinions of the founders who wrote it.

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means

[wdmso]

https://www.brennancenter.org//analy...waAiLIEALw_wcB


not sure why 2a supporters think people against assault weapons think we Don't know how to read or do research or see the topic in historical terms...

[ReelinRod]

LOL. Figured I'd poke my head in here and see how the gun debate is going . . . I read the thread and nothing has changed in the months since I was last here.

Originally Posted by wdmso

https://www.brennancenter.org//analy...waAiLIEALw_wcB


not sure why 2a supporters think people against assault weapons think we Don't know how to read or do research or see the topic in historical terms...

Well, when you link to commentary like that for support of your position, we know you would rather read BS instead of original sources.

There is but one constitutionally, legally and historically correct statement in that article; it is found in the first sentence:

"The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun."

The FRAMERS knew they were not creating anything with the words of the 2nd Amendment. The right to arms is a pre-existing right, not created, given, granted or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment.

"We the People" don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there; "We the People" possess the right because We never surrendered any aspect of the right, never conferred any power to government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

IOW, We don't posses the right because of what the 2ndA says, we posses the right because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

That you fail to comprehend this foundational tenet means you will never compose a single thought about guns and gun rights that conforms with the Constitution.

You will continue to say stuff like this, not realizing you are totally wrong in your thinking . . .

Originally Posted by wdmso

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means

What a purposefully wrong approach you take.

Please show me the words in the body of the Constitution that grants to Congress the power to ban any guns . . . Read the body of the Constitution to discern what the government can do, not the 2nd Amendment to try to discrn what the citizen is -allowed- to do.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means

read this if you can navigate around the ads

this link actually works unlike yours

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-te...cond-Amendment

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

read this if you can navigate around the ads

this link actually works unlike yours

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-te...cond-Amendment

you guys keep mudding the waters .. I am not against gun ownership never have been .. I am against the idea that somehow the constitution says you can have whatever type of gun you want . mantra hidden by your unfounded fear there taking our guns...

the NRA went from gun safety and marksmanship .. to marketing and sales of guns as their primary driver






https://www.brennancenter.org//analy...waAiLIEALw_wcB


Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.