Gun control debate (merged)

[Mick]

Lmao, deal!!! if you don't tell him I'm married.

I thought you two just had a long standing relationship without the strings. Congratulations, I guess. Lol. I'm sure there's never a dull moment.

 

[luthervol]

One undeniable statement ... “ Shall Not Be Infringed Upon “ . It’s actually the only right in the whole thing that says it . Simple really .

I get more hung up on the "well regulated militia" part.
Again, we will never agree. Epidemic gun violence is as American as baseball and apple pie.
Ironically, baseball is one of my least favorite sports and apple pie is at the bottom of my pie list.

 

[0nelilreb]

I get more hung up on the "well regulated militia" part.
Again, we will never agree. Epidemic gun violence is as American as baseball and apple pie.
Ironically, baseball is one of my least favorite sports and apple pie is at the bottom of my pie list.

You always leave out the most powerful ink blot on the planet .. that huge Comma they put in there . It’s been the scourge of many a left leaning lawyers .

 

[luthervol]

.

You always leave out the most powerful ink blot on the planet .. that huge Comma they put in there . It’s been the scourge of many a left leaning lawyers .

I don't get the significance of the comma, nor do I really care.
If the 2a has been interpreted as the founders intended, then the founders screwed up big time on that part.

 

[0nelilreb]

.
I don't get the significance of the comma, nor do I really care.
If the 2a has been interpreted as the founders intended, then the founders screwed up big time on that part.

Subjective opinions won’t win out over plain language . It’s hard to get around what they said . I believe they knew exactly what they were doing and saying and they placed that comma there for a reason . I do find it odd that an educator, doesn’t care about the significance of quotation in a sentence .

 

[GordonC]

You always leave out the most powerful ink blot on the planet .. that huge Comma they put in there . It’s been the scourge of many a left leaning lawyers .

I am a gun owner and 2A supporter.

But for the sake of argument,

1. What if it is read to serve grammatically as an absolute/participial phrase?

Example
His temper being what it is, Onelilreb's reaction was unsurprising.
Could be interpreted as:
Because Reb's temper. . . .

2. If we follow the rule of non-essential elements being separated by commas and leave out "being . . . State," then it reads "A well regulated Militia the right of . . . ." That makes no sense whatsoever. In the original text, well regulated isn't hyphenated either, but by current standards should be. So if they didn't hyphenate something that should be hyphenated, who's to say they didn't add a comma. If you look at all those original documents, they did some pretty weird things by our standards.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with the above, but I think it can be more open to interpretation than a lot of folks tend to believe.

 

[luthervol]

Subjective opinions won’t win out over plain language . It’s hard to get around what they said . I believe they knew exactly what they were doing and saying and they placed that comma there for a reason . I do find it odd that an educator, doesn’t care about the significance of quotation in a sentence .

Like I said, I don't get it. Never have and never will.
C'est la vie.
Let the butchery continue.

 

[ETV]

I haven't seen a single problem arising from the Dems policies in the last 4 years. Blah, blah, blah......

Just wait. This one will have a significant impact.

 

[0nelilreb]

I am a gun owner and 2A supporter.

But for the sake of argument,

1. What if it is read to serve grammatically as an absolute/participial phrase?

Example
His temper being what it is, Onelilreb's reaction was unsurprising.
Could be interpreted as:
Because Reb's temper. . . .

2. If we follow the rule of non-essential elements being separated by commas and leave out "being . . . State," then it reads "A well regulated Militia the right of . . . ." That makes no sense whatsoever. In the original text, well regulated isn't hyphenated either, but by current standards should be. So if they didn't hyphenate something that should be hyphenated, who's to say they didn't add a comma. If you look at all those original documents, they did some pretty weird things by our standards.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with the above, but I think it can be more open to interpretation than a lot of folks tend to believe.

Shall not be infringed upon isn’t open for debate nor is there an argument that would cause anyone to believe that they didn’t mean it when they wrote it down . Now all that’s left is to decide , were they talking about the right of the people , or the rights or the militia . Back then ( when they wrote it ) , the militia were the people , the people made up the militia. The militia was made up of self supporting people , they brought their own guns with them . So why or how could someone argue that they are not talking about the same thing ? Better still why would the FF cut their own throats by saying the people have restrictions on their guns knowing they might very well need those same people / militia again before the ink is dry on the parchment they wrote it on ?

 

[GordonC]

Shall not be infringed upon isn’t open for debate nor is there an argument that would cause anyone to believe that they didn’t mean it when they wrote it down . Now all that’s left is to decide , were they talking about the right of the people , or the rights or the militia . Back then ( when they wrote it ) , the militia were the people , the people made up the militia. The militia was made up of self supporting people , they brought their own guns with them . So why or how could someone argue that they are not talking about the same thing ? Better still why would the FF cut their own throats by saying the people have restrictions on their guns knowing they might very well need those same people / militia again before the ink is dry on the parchment they wrote it on ?

Uh yes. I understand all that and do not disagree.

Reread my post. It is very possible to interpret the beginning of that as "Because. . . ." If that is the interpretation, it would be logical for someone to say "well, we don't have militias anymore, so no need for guns." I don't agree with that at all, but I can see how someone could/would read it that way.

Which comma are you talking about? Is it the one before shall?

 

[hndog609]

I am a gun owner and 2A supporter.

But for the sake of argument,

1. What if it is read to serve grammatically as an absolute/participial phrase?

Example
His temper being what it is, Onelilreb's reaction was unsurprising.
Could be interpreted as:
Because Reb's temper. . . .

2. If we follow the rule of non-essential elements being separated by commas and leave out "being . . . State," then it reads "A well regulated Militia the right of . . . ." That makes no sense whatsoever. In the original text, well regulated isn't hyphenated either, but by current standards should be. So if they didn't hyphenate something that should be hyphenated, who's to say they didn't add a comma. If you look at all those original documents, they did some pretty weird things by our standards.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with the above, but I think it can be more open to interpretation than a lot of folks tend to believe.

Heller dove deep in addressing the prefatory/operative clause issue.

 

[0nelilreb]

Uh yes. I understand all that and do not disagree.

Reread my post. It is very possible to interpret the beginning of that as "Because. . . ." If that is the interpretation, it would be logical for someone to say "well, we don't have militias anymore, so no need for guns." I don't agree with that at all, but I can see how someone could/would read it that way.

Which comma are you talking about? Is it the one before shall?

Not having a militia doesn’t change the facts of who the right was intended for , since you couldn’t separate the people from the militia at the time it was written . A well regulated militia , ( that’s who it’s talking about in the next sentence ) being necessary to the security of a free state , ( this is talking about how important a militia is to the state ) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, ( this is talking about who makes up the militia , the state , the country . The people since they are one in the same ) , shall not be infringed upon . Remember we are not talking about the states rights or country’s rights . When we say our right , we are talking about the PEOPLES rights , not any other institutions . So it’s hard for me to grasp the concept that all the rights we have are afforded to us as individuals except this one and they were just talking about the militia here .

 

[GordonC]

Not having a militia doesn’t change the facts of who the right was intended for , since you couldn’t separate the people from the militia at the time it was written . A well regulated militia , ( that’s who it’s talking about in the next sentence ) being necessary to the security of a free state , ( this is talking about how important a militia is to the state ) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, ( this is talking about who makes up the militia , the state , the country . The people since they are one in the same ) , shall not be infringed upon . Remember we are not talking about the states rights or country’s rights . When we say our right , we are talking about the PEOPLES rights , not any other institutions . So it’s hard for me to grasp the concept that all the rights we have are afforded to us as individuals except this one and they were just talking about the militia here .

Of course. And for the sake of security, the people have the right to arm and protect themselves. Absolutely.

But when you get into 200 year-old grammatical constructs, which we're pretty much left to rely on because we can't dig the Founders up and ask them straight up, there will be and should be various interpretations. There was a time when dialogue, debate, and compromise kept this republic running.

 

[luthervol]

Of course. And for the sake of security, the people have the right to arm and protect themselves. Absolutely.

But when you get into 200 year-old grammatical constructs, which we're pretty much left to rely on because we can't dig the Founders up and ask them straight up, there will be and should be various interpretations. There was a time when dialogue, debate, and compromise kept this republic running.

I once thought there was room for reasonable and rational debate.
I was shocked when I was forced to realize that that was not the case when discussing guns.

 

[0nelilreb]

Of course. And for the sake of security, the people have the right to arm and protect themselves. Absolutely.

But when you get into 200 year-old grammatical constructs, which we're pretty much left to rely on because we can't dig the Founders up and ask them straight up, there will be and should be various interpretations. There was a time when dialogue, debate, and compromise kept this republic running.

You can’t get away from the right of the PEOPLE though , regardless of grammar. The reason why it’s been so hard to stop our 2a right is because of both the punctuation and it being a right of the people ( not a group or entity, like a militia or state ) . They could have absolutely written it better and more straightforward and we would have an argument at all . Example - “The people have a right to keep and bears arms , that right shall not be infringed upon” . I’m guessing at that time nobody in their mind thought anyone would or could take away your guns except a corrupt federal government .

 

[0nelilreb]

I once thought there was room for reasonable and rational debate.
I was shocked when I was forced to realize that that was not the case when discussing guns.

Is being vetted and allowed to , or denied your right to vote based on your history by the government reasonable and rational ?

 

[GordonC]

I once thought there was room for reasonable and rational debate.
I was shocked when I was forced to realize that that was not the case when discussing guns.

Well, the NRA has basically stood firm on no compromise, and gunowners are defensive about it (I am, too, but am always willing to talk to people). We used to go to gun shows in KY all the time, back in the day.

It's not just guns, though.

Everything is so divisive these days.

 

[0nelilreb]

Well, the NRA has basically stood firm on no compromise, and gunowners are defensive about it (I am, too, but am always willing to talk to people). We used to go to gun shows in KY all the time, back in the day.

It's not just guns, though.

Everything is so divisive these days.

A large reason for that is there’s no such thing as reasonable and rational to gun grabbers . It’s a subjective term based on where they set the goal posts .

 

[GordonC]

You can’t get away from the right of the PEOPLE though , regardless of grammar. The reason why it’s been so hard to stop our 2a right is because of both the punctuation and it being a right of the people ( not a group or entity, like a militia or state ) . They could have absolutely written it better and more straightforward and we would have an argument at all . Example - “The people have a right to keep and bears arms , that right shall not be infringed upon” . I’m guessing at that time nobody in their mind thought anyone would or could take away your guns except a corrupt federal government .

Did you ever once think that maybe they didn't write it straightforward because they WANTED debate because they knew debate would keep the system going?

Once you lay it out there in a straightforward way, you're following "policy."

They were pretty smart and foresighted that way.

 

[0nelilreb]

Did you ever once think that maybe they didn't write it straightforward because they WANTED debate because they knew debate would keep the system going?

Once you lay it out there in a straightforward way, you're following "policy."

They were pretty smart and foresighted that way.

I can agree with that but they were mostly worried about a corrupt federal government running roughshod over the people ( like they just broke away from ) . That’s why the rights are for the PEOPLE not the state , not the militia , not the government .

 

[luthervol]

Is being vetted and allowed to , or denied your right to vote based on your history by the government reasonable and rational ?

They sort of do that already don't they? Felons?
Maybe if they allowed a person the option of purchasing one gun every time they voted. jk

I don't find the comparison nearly as applicable as you do.

 

[0nelilreb]

They sort of do that already don't they? Felons?
Maybe if they allowed a person the option of purchasing one gun every time they voted. jk

I don't find the comparison nearly as applicable as you do.

Currently there are 21 states where felons lose there right to vote while incarcerated or on parole . There’s not one state I can go and by a gun and not have a background check ran on me and if I’m a felon no state will sell me the gun . I’ve never heard of a state making a person pay for a safe course to earn or obtain a permit before voting . Again I’m for making all rights the same as gun rights including all regulations that come with it ... how about you ?

 

[luthervol]

Currently there are 21 states where felons lose there right to vote while incarcerated or on parole . There’s not one state I can go and by a gun and not have a background check ran on me and if I’m a felon no state will sell me the gun . I’ve never heard of a state making a person pay for a safe course to earn or obtain a permit before voting . Again I’m for making all rights the same as gun rights including all regulations that come with it ... how about you ?

Not me.

 

[0nelilreb]

Not me.

Fair is fair , voting is arguable just as dangerous , if not more than owning a firearm .

 

[luthervol]

Fair is fair , voting is arguable just as dangerous , if not more than owning a firearm .

Well regulated.