Gun control debate (merged)

[luthervol]

There’s not valid alternative interpretations to the 2nd amendment that anyone familiar with the English language can honestly hold.

Sure there is, and there has been for decades.
Can fully automatic weapons be banned? Some say yes, some say no......depends on interpretation.

 

[Vol8188]

Sure there is, and there has been for decades.
Can fully automatic weapons be banned? Some say yes, some say no......depends on interpretation.

There’s only one logical interpretation of the text of the second amendment. The text is insanely clear. The right of the people shall not be infringed.

Government failure to live up to the constitution, doesn’t mean “there’s other valid ways to interpret it”.

 

[Vol8188]

Sure there is, and there has been for decades.
Can fully automatic weapons be banned? Some say yes, some say no......depends on interpretation.

Be specific here. What part of the second amendment is unclear to you or open to interpretation

 

[C-south]

Trump's role in the Jan. 6th national shame shows him to be exactly what I always maintained; a horrendously despicable human.
But I'm not sure he can be accused of anything legally beyond inciting a riot.
Now what he attempted to do in GA, that's another story all together.

Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal debacle should hold him accountable for murder along with arming terrorists.

 

[turbovol]

There’s only one logical interpretation of the text of the second amendment. The text is insanely clear. The right of the people shall not be infringed.

Government failure to live up to the constitution, doesn’t mean “there’s other valid ways to interpret it”.

Sure there can be--and should be--a different intepretation:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, .....

It CLEARLY puts individual gun ownership in the context of militias that were the only form of community self-defense when
the constitution was written. There are no more local militias, and therefore they aren't "necessary to the security of a free state...."

Beyond that....


In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time in almost 70 years after Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

District of columbia V. HELLER, 2008

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Heller decision was far from the blanket endorsement of unlimited gun rights that the gun lobby hoped it might be. Rather, the last decade of post-Heller litigation has demonstrated that the decision was a limited ruling fully compatible with the many lifesaving gun laws that protect us today.


More to come on this topic--but the obvious bottom line is that the safety of the American public is a helluva lot more important than the gun fetishes of neighborhood cowboys.

 

[turbovol]

Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal debacle should hold him accountable for murder along with arming terrorists.

A laughably lame attempt at equivalency....

 

[C-south]

Sure there can be--and should be--a different intepretation:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, .....

It CLEARLY puts individual gun ownership in the context of militias that were the only form of community self-defense when
the constitution was written. There are no more local militias, and therefore they aren't "necessary to the security of a free state...."

Beyond that....


In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time in almost 70 years after Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

District of columbia V. HELLER, 2008

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Heller decision was far from the blanket endorsement of unlimited gun rights that the gun lobby hoped it might be. Rather, the last decade of post-Heller litigation has demonstrated that the decision was a limited ruling fully compatible with the many lifesaving gun laws that protect us today.


More to come on this topic--but the obvious bottom line is that the safety of the American public is a helluva lot more important than the gun fetishes of neighborhood cowboys.

The bottom line is there is nothing to interpret. The founding fathers didn’t write it and say figure it out. They offered countless examples for context. It’s convenient for some to leave that out just like it is to ignore a comma.

 

[C-south]

A laughably lame attempt at equivalency....

Like Barry giving guns to Mexicans that they used to kill Americans.

 

[85SugarVol]

He did buy them in a short amount of time. I'm not sure what all thresholds I have thrown out. You guys seem to pay a lot more attention to those than I do.
My whole point has always been - "I don't know; it's negotiable, there is room for compromise."
I'm just kind of the idea guy.

There’s that word again - “compromise”

You come up with anything you can bring to the table?

You do not possess universal healthcare. You cannot offer it up for trade.

 

[hog88]

Sure there can be--and should be--a different intepretation:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, .....

It CLEARLY puts individual gun ownership in the context of militias that were the only form of community self-defense when
the constitution was written. There are no more local militias, and therefore they aren't "necessary to the security of a free state...."

Beyond that....


In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time in almost 70 years after Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

District of columbia V. HELLER, 2008

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Heller decision was far from the blanket endorsement of unlimited gun rights that the gun lobby hoped it might be. Rather, the last decade of post-Heller litigation has demonstrated that the decision was a limited ruling fully compatible with the many lifesaving gun laws that protect us today.


More to come on this topic--but the obvious bottom line is that the safety of the American public is a helluva lot more important than the gun fetishes of neighborhood cowboys.

LOL

 

[Vol8188]

Sure there can be--and should be--a different intepretation:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, .....

It CLEARLY puts individual gun ownership in the context of militias that were the only form of community self-defense when
the constitution was written. There are no more local militias, and therefore they aren't "necessary to the security of a free state...."

Beyond that....


In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time in almost 70 years after Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

District of columbia V. HELLER, 2008

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Heller decision was far from the blanket endorsement of unlimited gun rights that the gun lobby hoped it might be. Rather, the last decade of post-Heller litigation has demonstrated that the decision was a limited ruling fully compatible with the many lifesaving gun laws that protect us today.


More to come on this topic--but the obvious bottom line is that the safety of the American public is a helluva lot more important than the gun fetishes of neighborhood cowboys.

lets start at the top. What you mentioned is called a clause. It does not say the right to bare arms is only applicable to a militia. But rather it says because the ability to form militias is important for maintaining a free state, “the right of the people to keep and bare arms”, it very, very clearly to anyone familiar with the English language states that the right is not a right of “militias” but of “people”.

It would be like saying:

Public debate is of great importance, therefore the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed.

No one could honestly read that as “you only have the right to free speech when engaging in public debate”.

 

[hndog609]

Sure there can be--and should be--a different intepretation:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, .....

It CLEARLY puts individual gun ownership in the context of militias that were the only form of community self-defense when
the constitution was written. There are no more local militias, and therefore they aren't "necessary to the security of a free state...."

Beyond that....


In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time in almost 70 years after Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

District of columbia V. HELLER, 2008

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Heller decision was far from the blanket endorsement of unlimited gun rights that the gun lobby hoped it might be. Rather, the last decade of post-Heller litigation has demonstrated that the decision was a limited ruling fully compatible with the many lifesaving gun laws that protect us today.


More to come on this topic--but the obvious bottom line is that the safety of the American public is a helluva lot more important than the gun fetishes of neighborhood cowboys.

It takes a special kind of person to quote a decision that clearly (and explained in great detail why) held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


while simultaneously asserting firearm possession is predicated on militia service. Kudos.

 

[82_VOL_83]

They know it - unless they truly are incredibly stupid - they just can't publicly admit it because it destroys their narrative.

So you are saying that the people that enforce the laws on straw sales are too stupid to enforce them so you think we are stupid enough to believe your stupid narrative that more laws will help? Even with the help of an illegal registry?

 

[Vol8188]

Sure there can be--and should be--a different intepretation:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, .....

It CLEARLY puts individual gun ownership in the context of militias that were the only form of community self-defense when
the constitution was written. There are no more local militias, and therefore they aren't "necessary to the security of a free state...."

Beyond that....


In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time in almost 70 years after Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

District of columbia V. HELLER, 2008

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Heller decision was far from the blanket endorsement of unlimited gun rights that the gun lobby hoped it might be. Rather, the last decade of post-Heller litigation has demonstrated that the decision was a limited ruling fully compatible with the many lifesaving gun laws that protect us today.


More to come on this topic--but the obvious bottom line is that the safety of the American public is a helluva lot more important than the gun fetishes of neighborhood cowboys.

Lol the limits you mentioned are “property rights” (obviously others get to decide if you can bring x to their property), “dangerous people” (obviously punishing crime requires the removal of rights due to their violation of the rights of others), “impose conditions on the commercial sale” (obviously not all rights are gained at birth).

 

[82_VOL_83]

So why do you guys get so hung up on a national registry?

Because your next step is confiscation.

 

[Vol8188]

More to come on this topic--but the obvious bottom line is that the safety of the American public is a helluva lot more important than the gun fetishes of neighborhood cowboys.

Lol yes, the problem is “neighborhood cowboys with gun fetishes”.

Once again:

White homicide rate: 2.5/100k
Black homicide rate 19/100k

Roughly ten times the white rate depending on the year. Not a product of “poverty” either. The majority of food stamps in this country go to white Americans (more total white people live in poverty). The majority of all homicides in this country are committed by black Americans

 

[85SugarVol]

Trump's role in the Jan. 6th national shame shows him to be exactly what I always maintained; a horrendously despicable human.
But I'm not sure he can be accused of anything legally beyond inciting a riot.
Now what he attempted to do in GA, that's another story all together.

I hardly ever mention him, and I certainly don’t follow his escapades.

You said legal gun owners are responsible for mass shootings - at least partially and definitely indirectly.

It’s akin to saying Trump killed cops at the Capitol. It’s absurd.

 

[85SugarVol]

Turbo is actually worse than Luther. It’s remarkable.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Turbo is actually worse than Luther. It’s remarkable.

I think they are related. Either by marriage or otherwise.

 

[Orangeburst]

Non-Law Enforcement Agencies Like IRS and EPA Spend Billions on Guns and Ammo, Watchdog Says

 

[loggervol]

There’s that word again - “compromise”

You come up with anything you can bring to the table?

You do not possess universal healthcare. You cannot offer it up for trade.

Compromise = infringement

 

[C-south]

Non-Law Enforcement Agencies Like IRS and EPA Spend Billions on Guns and Ammo, Watchdog Says

So now it’s armed robbery.

 

[85SugarVol]

Non-Law Enforcement Agencies Like IRS and EPA Spend Billions on Guns and Ammo, Watchdog Says

The EPA

 

[85SugarVol]

Non-Law Enforcement Agencies Like IRS and EPA Spend Billions on Guns and Ammo, Watchdog Says

Traditional And Regulatory U.S. Agencies Continued To Stockpile Guns, Ammunition, And Military-Style Equipment Under President Trump

Asked for comment on the Open the Books findings, EPA said purchases of armaments are necessary for "environmental crime-fighting."

Environmental Crime Fighters.

 

[hog88]

Traditional And Regulatory U.S. Agencies Continued To Stockpile Guns, Ammunition, And Military-Style Equipment Under President Trump

Asked for comment on the Open the Books findings, EPA said purchases of armaments are necessary for "environmental crime-fighting."

Environmental Crime Fighters.

How else do you think the CIA gets its armament to supply every little rebel band around the world? Can’t have that money in the intelligence budgets.