guns

[satellitedriver]

Satellite,

maybe a history lesson is in order for you?? First, you have to know history to understand it. In 1792, one year after (1791) and the creation of the second amendment, congress passed THE MILITIA act of 1792. This is critical to the second amendment as it DEFINED what the militia was and WHO was to be in it. This carried on for decades, until in 1903 all the militia acts were repealed and replaced with the creation of the national guard.

If you believe the 1903 act that created the national guard is unrelated to the second amendment, then youd better look it up.

Lastly, ISRAEL has stricter guns laws today than germany had before WWII.

So, lets get over the jewish thing already.

Peace

TOS

Slick,
I have a fair knowledge of history, and constitutional law.
By constitutional law, the 2nd amendment can only be repealed by a majority vote, brought before and voted upon, by all the states.
This voting process has never occurred, nor even proposed, since the ratification of the 2nd amendment.
Ha, Ha.
The Jewish thing?
From memory, I think it is called the haganah.
I will let you google it and see how much the Israelis believed in a well armed populace.

 

[The Other Side]

Slick,
I have a fair knowledge of history, and constitutional law.
By constitutional law, the 2nd amendment can only be repealed by a majority vote, brought before and voted upon, by all the states.
This voting process has never occurred, nor even proposed, since the ratification of the 2nd amendment.
Ha, Ha.
The Jewish thing?
From memory, I think it is called the haganah.
I will let you google it and see how much the Israelis believed in a well armed populace.

I encourage you to research Israel's gun laws! I could only wish that the USA would adopt the Israeli gun control laws as they presently stand.
Guns in Israel: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

I believe that the USA should regulate guns as Israel does, and gun owners be limited to a pistol and 50 rounds of ammo for the year. No shotguns, NO assault rifles, NO weapons of mass destruction, NO hoarding of bullets and full and complete background checks including a full mental evaluation with disqualifiers for mental health issues like depression, anxiety or mood disorders.

And the best part is that a gun owner in Israel has to do this every three years in order to keep a pistol!

Its an awesome set of regulations.

Further, if you get caught with an illegal weapon, unregistered weapon, hoards of ammo or have a gun despite being disqualified, then a minimum of 10 years in prison is the sentence.

So, when I tell you to get over the Jewish thing, you'd better. This isn't 1939, even though gun control in Germany started long before Hitler took power, but then again, you claim to be the history buff.

You say Israel believes in a well armed populace? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Thanks for the laugh!

Peace

TOS

 

[804brown]

Umm.... Don't think so


Senate rejects expanded gun background checks - CNN.com

You are right. In congress, a very moderate gun safety bill BACKED BY 90% OF AMERICANS went down, by a very scared, weak kneed group of UNrepresentatives. It didnt even have the assault weapons ban or magazine clip limits in the bill AND IT STILL FAILED. Once again the slimy GUN INDUSTRY has bought itself another "victory"and the 90% lost. But the gun people will still have their toys to play with. So the rest of us have to worry about another mass shooting by someone with a WMD, someone so selfish and greedy , someone not content with a simple rifle or handgun to either hunt or "protect" himself. NO, these gun people seem to need an arsenal. Yesterday, the purists, the extremists, the fundamentalists won. Common sense and justice lost!!

 

[moreluck]

You are right. In congress, a very moderate gun safety bill BACKED BY 90% OF AMERICANS went down, by a very scared, weak kneed group of UNrepresentatives. It didnt even have the assault weapons ban or magazine clip limits in the bill AND IT STILL FAILED. Once again the slimy GUN INDUSTRY has bought itself another "victory"and the 90% lost. But the gun people will still have their toys to play with. So the rest of us have to worry about another mass shooting by someone with a WMD, someone so selfish and greedy , someone not content with a simple rifle or handgun to either hunt or "protect" himself. NO, these gun people seem to need an arsenal. Yesterday, the purists, the extremists, the fundamentalists won. Common sense and justice lost!!

Some of your points are heard in the abortion arguments too!! Where's your rage at the murderous doctor on trial now?






What trial? The one that the major networks did not cover for weeks.

 

[upsgrunt]

You are right. In congress, a very moderate gun safety bill BACKED BY 90% OF AMERICANS went down, by a very scared, weak kneed group of UNrepresentatives. It didnt even have the assault weapons ban or magazine clip limits in the bill AND IT STILL FAILED. Once again the slimy GUN INDUSTRY has bought itself another "victory"and the 90% lost. But the gun people will still have their toys to play with. So the rest of us have to worry about another mass shooting by someone with a WMD, someone so selfish and greedy , someone not content with a simple rifle or handgun to either hunt or "protect" himself. NO, these gun people seem to need an arsenal. Yesterday, the purists, the extremists, the fundamentalists won. Common sense and justice lost!!

I keep hearing the 90% number being used. I'd like to see some hard proof to back this up; or is it used just because Biden said so? There is no way that 9 out of 10 people are in favor for gun control.

 

[Babagounj]

Does Biden still frequent his local diner , that closed 20 yrs ago ?

 

[dilligaf]

my driver picks up there every night. They are having an auction on Friday, you should stop by. Unbelievably cool stuff there.

I wish I could. I would love too.

 

[dilligaf]

Nice, but at $22 a box I don't think I could afford much practice. This caliber looks nearly impossible to reload. I'll just stick to my Glock 22,Ruger GP100 and Makarov.

I have the same issue with my Savage 17, but I still go out every once in awhile and shoot it. My Sig 22 is my plinking gun of choice.

 

[trplnkl]

My link brought about the discussions of both sides of the argument. What you extrapolate from them is your business. You point out a segment of the "opinion" of the piece provided by the CATO institute that begins with "IF TRUE".... you cant leave out those words.
Extrapolating can go either way and comes down to a matter of opinion to a point. I underlined "If true" for a reason, as to not leave anything out. The link does give the opinions of both sides and that is all it is, opinions not hard facts. Some of the opinions are pretty far reaching to conclude in a twist of what I believe to be the intent.

Then, it goes on to describe the CATO institutes opinion on the verbal of the second amendment.

The point being, the second amendment was a military clause at the time, and being that it was, attempting to apply a "private citizen" interpretation to it today makes no sense given the structure of the second amendment.

Again, your point that the second amendment was a military clause is speculation, not a fact. As the author of the article pointed out, the language used at that the time was very close to that use in England at the time. Again that is speculation on the part of the author but his hypothesis is that the second amendment is NOT a military clause. Other than a linguist's opinion where is there evidence that the writers of the second amendment intended a military application?

NOWHERE in the second amendment will you find a stand alone sentence that is self defining that states that "The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". Nor will you find any stand alone sentence that says a private person can own, possess, transport or carry a weapon.
While it is true, there is no stand alone sentence that gives the right to a private citizen those rights. Like wise, there is no stand alone sentence that limits those rights only to government.

How anyone translates the word "BEAR"(bear[SUP] 1[/SUP] (bâr)v. bore (bôr, b

r), borne (bôrn, b

rn) or born (bôrn), bear·ing, bears
v.tr........To carry from one place to another; transport.)
arms to mean OWNERSHIP is beyond me. I would like to see an definition from anyone where the word "BEAR" means ownership, possession, transportation or carrying.
How about the word, "KEEP"(keep (k

p)v. kept, keep·ing, keeps
v.tr.1. To retain possession of) ?

In reality, the word "BEAR" means nothing without the entire sentence contained in the structure of the second amendment.
Very few words, all by themselves, mean a lot.

The preamble of the sentence "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" is followed by a comma, and that comma means the next portion of the sentence applies to the preamble. "being necessary to the security of a free state", then separated by another comma which means the next portion also applies to the preamble "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" which is separated by another comma, which means the next portion applies to the preamble "shall not be infringed".

Originally, the second amendment was written like this:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Actually that isn't totally true:

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It only contained ONE comma. It was clear the intention of the sentence had a military meaning, in the form of a Militia. Further, the congress constructed and passed a guideline for the application of the second amendment in the form of the militia act of 1792.

If they writers of the Constitution intended the 2nd to be a military clause, why would they use the word "PEOPLE" instead of "army" or "military"? Everywhere else they refer to private citizens as "the people". Every writing I can find on the subject of private gun ownership penned by the founders, support the right for citizens to "keep and bear arms".

The NRA and GUN owners themselves have gone to extremes to IGNORE these facts, and the NRA itself leaves out the preamble of the second amendment alltogether.

Most people think the following sentence is in the second amendment:

"THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...

Of course, thats not in the second amendment. Its two "fractions" of a larger sentence combined to form a new, stand alone sentence.
If you want to be honest about this, it is two "fractions" of FOUR parts of a sentence. None of which is a stand alone thought. If you want to use the one comma sentence you typed out earlier, we can analyze that also.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State(is not a stand alone sentence), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed(can be a stand alone sentence).


In reality, the second amendment is OUTDATED and should be repealed by congress and replaced with actual language that defines gun ownership and the limitations of the need for guns given the fact that the USA now has a standing army and a full military complex to protect the USA and there would be NO NEED for private citizens to arm themselves to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction.

It is nothing but YOUR opinion that the 2nd is outdated. In my opinion the 2nd is even more needed today than anytime since the Constitution was signed, for several reasons. The purpose of the standing army/military complex is and always has been to protect the country from foreign and domestic enemies. Self protection is an inalienable right we all have, the means to do so is a Constitutional right, like it or not. Your zeal to disarm citizens to whatever degree YOU deem proper, shows two possibilities. 1) You have complete confidence that there will never be a tyrant ruler ever in power that can ignore laws of the land and disable built in mechanisms to keep that from happening. 2) Full faith that local law enforcement can and will protect you from criminals that pay not attention to established laws. Good for you.
P.S. Keep dreaming of the day that Congress ever repeals the 2nd Amendment

Peace

TOS

 

[dilligaf]

The NRA 500 at Texas Motor Speedway is my new current favorite. I'm considering getting season tickets.

 

[trplnkl]

You are right. In congress, a very moderate gun safety bill BACKED BY 90% OF AMERICANS went down, by a very scared, weak kneed group of UNrepresentatives. It didnt even have the assault weapons ban or magazine clip limits in the bill AND IT STILL FAILED. Once again the slimy GUN INDUSTRY has bought itself another "victory"and the 90% lost. But the gun people will still have their toys to play with. So the rest of us have to worry about another mass shooting by someone with a WMD, someone so selfish and greedy , someone not content with a simple rifle or handgun to either hunt or "protect" himself. NO, these gun people seem to need an arsenal. Yesterday, the purists, the extremists, the fundamentalists won. Common sense and justice lost!!

Please, tell the truth. Do you really believe that if the bill that lost yesterday was in effect one year ago, even two years ago, would that have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook? If you do truly believe that please support that belief with what provisions of the law would have done the job.

Further more the 90% support of all Americans? Really? That number came from a poll, a freakin' poll and we all know that even the best polls are suspect in application.

 

[trplnkl]

I dont know if you can read or not, and I presume you have some concept of of it, I ask you if you "MISSED" the following words in the text you posted and cited?

""District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.""

In Heller, the court ruled only that Heller had a right to possess a gun IN THE HOME and did not extend that right to CARRYING THE WEAPON ON THE STREET.

This is why they did not want to hear the recent case and allowed the states appellate courts rulings to STAND on gun control. The high court knows it would rule against GUN owners, the NRA and voters like yourself by hearing the case, and it was more prudent to "lay blame" onto the states appellate courts instead of being the ones who validate the states gun control laws.

For now, states have the rights to pass laws like NEW YORK did, and that will limit all kinds of weapons.

No matter what you or I think about the issue, the high court showed its hand and did not protect GUN owners.

A total victory for gun control activists.

Peace

TOS

Evidently you failed to read the SCotUS case brief on this ruling.

Oh and HEY, did ya notice I resisted the opportunity to slam you on your lack of reading comprehension? LOL, what am I thinking, of course you missed it.

 

[soberups]

For now, states have the rights to pass laws like NEW YORK did, and that will limit all kinds of weapons.

No matter what you or I think about the issue, the high court showed its hand and did not protect GUN owners.

A total victory for gun control activists.

Peace

TOS

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are currently 43 states with "shall issue" concealed carry permit laws. I dont foresee that number declining any time in the near future. Permit applications and gun/ammo sales are at an all time high. The fact that the Supreme Court declined to hear a suit against one of the seven remaining nanny state idiot colonies hardly qualifies as a "victory" for your side.

 

[soberups]

Instead of worrying about commas, why not just take the text of the Second Amendment at face value?

If the Second Amendment only gurantees the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia....then why doesnt it say that? Why does it specifically gurantee that right to "the people" instead of "members of the militia?"

The Founding Fathers mistrusted standing armies within their midst, and felt that an armed populace was the final gurantor of a free society. The Constitution is full of checks and balances; an armed population is one of those checks.

 

[The Other Side]

Instead of worrying about commas, why not just take the text of the Second Amendment at face value?

If the Second Amendment only gurantees the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia....then why doesnt it say that? Why does it specifically gurantee that right to "the people" instead of "members of the militia?"

The Founding Fathers mistrusted standing armies within their midst, and felt that an armed populace was the final gurantor of a free society. The Constitution is full of checks and balances; an armed population is one of those checks.

Sober,

like TRP, you want to only extrapolate one "fragment" of a larger sentence and give it a separate meaning from its intended meaning. As I said and its clear, there is NO STAND ALONE sentence or wording that is self defining in the second amendment that says "THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE....."

You are relying on a fragment and disregarding the entire sentence.

At the time, the USA had NO STANDING ARMY and the "people" were the standing army as defined by the MILITIA ACT of 1792. With a military structure in place given the Militia act of 1792, the "PEOPLE" are now classified in a military sense. This cannot be ignored, despite every effort by gun owners to do so.

The second amendment does In FACT say specifically that the MILITIA MEMBERS are the persons to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, ( comma ) means everything after the comma applies to the militia. IF the founders wanted an armed populace, it would have stated so in a self defining stand alone sentence.

But, that's not what the founders wanted. As I keep saying, there was NO WAY the founders wanted ALL americans or people in the USA at the time to own weapons, which is why in the militia act of 1792, it was declared that only FREE WHITE MEN could possess a gun or be in the militia.

Mexicans, Blacks, Asians and such could not be in the militia.

Further, blacks especially could not possess a gun for any reason, so , to say that the founders wanted an armed populace is not accurate. The founders needed a standing army that could be controlled, and the peoples militia was the only way to get that done.

There were several militia acts passed over the years following the founding of the country, up to the point in 1903 where the militia acts were repealed and replaced by the National Guard.

You are a part of a group of people who want to ignore the commas because it allows you to fragment the intention into meaning something you want it to mean. "I" on the other hand, take the second amendment as it reads.

I read it to mean the "people" of each state at the time make up the militia, that militia has a right to arm itself and protect the state, and that militia has to be regulated with officers and privates and terms of duty, and further, the president of the United States could call up that militia at any time.

I read it to mean that given the fact that the USA had no standing army for defense, it was necessary to form a peoples army.

Today, this has no value in America.

We have a complete military complex and there is NO need for an armed populace to protect anything. If we want to discuss private protection, then that's a completely different story.

This is why I say the second amendment doesn't apply today and should be repealed. There should be a revision to the second amendment to define what self protection can mean. If it is to include guns, then it needs to be specified and regulated.

This country is full of kooks, and it seems that the gun populace has the majority of them within their ranks. Full mental evaluations should be a part of ANY new gun controls.

Disqualifiers should be in place and ANYONE who has any kind of mental disorder or mood disorder requiring prescription drugs should be disqualified from owning a gun.

The founders in no way, wanted an America where over 30000 of its citizens are killed every year with guns. There is no way the founders wanted to see schools shot up with semi automatic military style weapons.

To believe that the founders intended America to be like it is today with respect to guns is laughable at best.

Peace

TOS

 

[moreluck]

 

[brett636]

You are right. In congress, a very moderate gun safety bill BACKED BY 90% OF AMERICANS went down, by a very scared, weak kneed group of UNrepresentatives. It didnt even have the assault weapons ban or magazine clip limits in the bill AND IT STILL FAILED. Once again the slimy GUN INDUSTRY has bought itself another "victory"and the 90% lost. But the gun people will still have their toys to play with. So the rest of us have to worry about another mass shooting by someone with a WMD, someone so selfish and greedy , someone not content with a simple rifle or handgun to either hunt or "protect" himself. NO, these gun people seem to need an arsenal. Yesterday, the purists, the extremists, the fundamentalists won. Common sense and justice lost!!

So I'm just curious, but how would expanded background checks have stopped the Newtown incident?

 

[brett636]

Sober,

like TRP, you want to only extrapolate one "fragment" of a larger sentence and give it a separate meaning from its intended meaning. As I said and its clear, there is NO STAND ALONE sentence or wording that is self defining in the second amendment that says "THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE....."

You are relying on a fragment and disregarding the entire sentence.

At the time, the USA had NO STANDING ARMY and the "people" were the standing army as defined by the MILITIA ACT of 1792. With a military structure in place given the Militia act of 1792, the "PEOPLE" are now classified in a military sense. This cannot be ignored, despite every effort by gun owners to do so.

The second amendment does In FACT say specifically that the MILITIA MEMBERS are the persons to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, ( comma ) means everything after the comma applies to the militia. IF the founders wanted an armed populace, it would have stated so in a self defining stand alone sentence.

But, that's not what the founders wanted. As I keep saying, there was NO WAY the founders wanted ALL americans or people in the USA at the time to own weapons, which is why in the militia act of 1792, it was declared that only FREE WHITE MEN could possess a gun or be in the militia.

Mexicans, Blacks, Asians and such could not be in the militia.

Further, blacks especially could not possess a gun for any reason, so , to say that the founders wanted an armed populace is not accurate. The founders needed a standing army that could be controlled, and the peoples militia was the only way to get that done.

There were several militia acts passed over the years following the founding of the country, up to the point in 1903 where the militia acts were repealed and replaced by the National Guard.

You are a part of a group of people who want to ignore the commas because it allows you to fragment the intention into meaning something you want it to mean. "I" on the other hand, take the second amendment as it reads.

I read it to mean the "people" of each state at the time make up the militia, that militia has a right to arm itself and protect the state, and that militia has to be regulated with officers and privates and terms of duty, and further, the president of the United States could call up that militia at any time.

I read it to mean that given the fact that the USA had no standing army for defense, it was necessary to form a peoples army.

Today, this has no value in America.

We have a complete military complex and there is NO need for an armed populace to protect anything. If we want to discuss private protection, then that's a completely different story.

This is why I say the second amendment doesn't apply today and should be repealed. There should be a revision to the second amendment to define what self protection can mean. If it is to include guns, then it needs to be specified and regulated.

This country is full of kooks, and it seems that the gun populace has the majority of them within their ranks. Full mental evaluations should be a part of ANY new gun controls.

Disqualifiers should be in place and ANYONE who has any kind of mental disorder or mood disorder requiring prescription drugs should be disqualified from owning a gun.

The founders in no way, wanted an America where over 30000 of its citizens are killed every year with guns. There is no way the founders wanted to see schools shot up with semi automatic military style weapons.

To believe that the founders intended America to be like it is today with respect to guns is laughable at best.

Peace

TOS

Its interesting how you will argue that every amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the Individual, but in this one single instance our fore fathers intended the 2nd to apply to the government. Is that your argument? Why does that make sense given the overwhelming focus on the freedom of the individual in the remainder of the Bill of Rights?

 

[moreluck]

NRA chief: Obama 'bit off more than he could chew' | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[toonertoo]

This is how you get dangerous guns off the street, the good old fashion way. Kudos to Warren Ohio, and all the agencies involved!97 busted (video) - TribToday.com - News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Tribune Chronicle - Warren, OH