you've been ranting about gun control incessantly and how something needs to be done, but the only solutions you've been engaging in is registration while ignoring the actual impact. Registration will always lead to confiscation, but that part doesn't seem to bother you, ergo, you are a gun grabber
You don't have any ideas, thoughts or have read ideas about how to stop gun violence? IMO, most gun violence is either domestic disputes and gang bangers. Both are cultural but take different solutions. Domestic disputes involves teaching, assisting and offering counseling for couples how to resolve differences without trying to kill each other. The second one is a tougher nut to crack. How do cities solve their gang problems? It covers a lot of territory, including cultural, but also includes education, jobs and outside support from the justice system for law and order.
Post number or nothing. - - - Updated - - - I have ideas but since I don't know enough about the subject, I have no opinion on it.
I'm not sure what you're attempting to accomplish by 'throwing down the gauntlet' and throwing around flamebait... If you have a perspective to share, feel free to do so and I'll happily respond. Isn't that what the forum is for?
Are you suggested that you've contributed something more than trolling? Please point out the productive and insightful post.
well, since you are of the opinion that you don't need your Rights, then I guess you are done here. We know where your loyalties lie........and you are anti-gun - - - Updated - - - you still don't get it..............................
Since you don't seem to understand my argument and you keep replying to my posts, then you're in a for a nice and long argument with me.
my grandchild displays better "arguments" and he shoots. - - - Updated - - - nope, guess you are wrong please try again......
How? Easy. Took a quick tour of the Internet and found these. Enjoy "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 188) "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
No matter what spoken quotes you might cherry pick, no conversation can be considered as though out and intentional as the words written into legislation. The Militia Act spells out what "well regulated" looks like, and it isn't a bunch of untrained yahoos with zero accountability shooting anything they imagine to be "threatening" while talking (*)(*)(*)(*) about the POTUS.
Please point out how we're "well regulated" in comparison the the militia they clearly spelled out in the Militia Act.
Cherry picking quotes to support your preconceptions, while ignoring the system they clearly put in place (including the Militia Act) is a great example of several fallacies, not to mention intellectual dishonesty.
Because anti-gun proponents don't want to see evidence they are wrong? The Supreme Court has ruled several times the Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms. A fact the anti-gun mob not only chooses to ignore, but often causes them to act like children sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "naw, naw, naw! I can't hear youooooo!" http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.
Since our Constitution was written by the founding fathers, I'd like to hear some of their pro gun control arguments. Did they even exist? You accused somebody of "cherry picking". Since the vast majority of FF were pro-2A, how was he cherry picking? I haven't been dishonest about anything.
the argument against rests squarely on the SCOTUS ruling where they declare the militia clause has nothing to do with the Right to own and carry. First they argue that you must be in a milita, That gets segregated, but they still argue it. Hell, most people don't even know what their Rights are. SCOTUS clearly states that one doesn't have to be part of the militia to own and carry. But some post that you must, thereby attempting to still change the Right into a privilege. They believe that ONLY owners who belong to the militia should own, then they try to argue about the legitimacy of the militia... Stand firm Texan.....some of these people just don't get it, not even those claiming to be pro-Rights who argue about their Rights while denying yours...
This is an excellent read: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers. These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.
You mean kinda like you're doing in relation to the Militia Act as it was written by the same founders who referenced a "well regulated militia" in the 2A?
