Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumIs RKBA an Individual Right?
Quote from a member of the Continental Congress
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms".
— Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1
It just does not get much more clear than that but if you need more try:
"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."
-- Tench Coxe --
Semper Fi,
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ileus
(15,396 posts)If they're not legal for the individual to own someone needs to come get them. Don't forget to stop at the neighbors first.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Obviously, this needs to be clarified, so that those who carry willy-nilly will understand the true purpose of 2A, the most ambiguous and poorly written amendment to the constitution.
DWC
(911 posts)Your ludicrous response is Hoytesque in the extreme
Semper Fi,
Clames
(2,038 posts)You seem to have a very difficult time properly framing that term.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)But whether you like it or not (obviously not) it is NOT tied to being part of a militia. It is YOU that needs to understand the true purpose of the 2A.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)However, we see in the Fourth Amendment a similar reference to "the people," but it is not "communitarian:"
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]"
Of course, some measure of common sense would inform anyone that this is a right not conditioned upon membership or status. But a closer reading of this sentence we find "...describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This is eminently individual, underwriting the entire meaning of the Fourth. Further, "the people" is not equivalent to the "state."
I think the proper way to look at the Second's so-called "militia clause" is recognizing the federal government's interest in the individual right to keep and bear arms. Far from "conditioning" the RKBA, the central government is relying on that right in order to fulfill its powers of calling up a militia (in Article One).
The awkward phraseology exists in a few state constitutions:
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm
■New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 contained a preamble for the freedom of the press: “The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”
■Rhode Island’s 1842 state constitution recited a preamble before its declaration of the right of free speech and press: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty...”
In New Hampshire's case, are we to believe that the "liberty of the Press" is conditioned by whether or not it is a function of the state's self-defined "security of freedom?" In Rhode Island's case, are we to believe that one's publishing is protected only in the context of the state's definition of "freedom in a state?" Clearly, the answers are "no." Yet, some would say that the RKBA is conditioned on membership in a militia, and would regulate, control or deny such a right since it does not comport with militia membership.
The Right to keep and bear arms is individual. Individual states may have the power to regulate the manner in which arms are carried (open or concealed), but must not violate the Second and Fourteenth by denying both.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)However, under 2A, I do not contend that individual ownership and keeping of arms be contingent on membership in a militia. The bearing, yes.
States and local government should have the right to regulate the bearing of arms in their jurisdiction, placing the onus on the individual to be accordingly informed as to any restrictions which may apply.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)have the discretion to allow either open carry or concealed carry. They may also set whatever standards (training, clear BG check) are required on a "shall issue" basis (no return to the "may issue" voter literacy sort of requirements), or not. They cannot deny both, but they may protect both, if they so choose. The states may regulate where guns are carried to a degree, but not to do so in a manner which makes a mockery of that right (example, not in a courthouse).
I do not believe that bearing requires formal membership in a militia -- the whole notion of militia being fluid as it is. Virtually everyone (assuming gender neutrality in current laws) is a member of unorganized militia, in any case.
An interesting frontier of discussion is a state's requirement or definition of militia membership. I am not opposed to some formality in that definition, though I would be hesitant if it implied a standing LEO or other quasi-military organization. I'll think on this some. Thanks for your reply.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)10 USC 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)but rather the right to bear being restricted to individual participation in a militia, rather than willy-nilly personal use.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't know that I agree. it doesn't explicitly talk about it, whereas my state constitution does:
Section 24:
Right to Bear Arms.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And 2A should probably be rewritten to clarify, one way or the other. It should also be clear as to whether local jurisdictions have the power to allow or restrict carrying in certain areas.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)to do such things.
Keep in mind, the 2nd also doesn't prohibit anything to the people. In effect, it says people may have guns, and the government is not allowed to inhibit that. It doesn't need to speak to concealed carry, or open carry, at all. It is purpose-agnostic.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)and insisted on empowering a militia comprised of every able bodied man willing and able to fire a rifle in defense of the country in order to avoid all the nasty things that rise up alongside a large entrenched military presence. They were in agreement that the militia was not an organized military force controlled by the government but, rather, to be comprised of every able bodied man willing and able to fire a rifle in defense of the country. Come January 2nd, 2013 we may very well come to see in hinsight what our forefather knew in forsight, that widespread and entrenched militarism is unsustainable and that the militia is the only sustainable form of national defense. For this reason, the right to possess the implements of war is and has always been the birth right of every American and it should always be this way.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There is a huge difference between possess for militia use and carrying around for personal self defense.
What's the deal with January 2, 2013?
trouble.smith
(374 posts)It was their intention for "every man that is able, to be armed". I'm not going to copy and paste them all but here's a few. January 2nd is when the defense cuts are supposed to go in to effect.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Why would we not follow the advice of a bunch of slave owners from 200+ years ago. Makes one wonder which century some of you guys live in.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Those are the folks who wrote the Constitution, after all. One bad idea spoils the whole bunch!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They were living in different times. Time to move on, as we moved on from slavery. As we moved on with suffrage and women's rights. The only relevance 2A has today is that it makes the country look ridiculous. There is no militia in the sense meant by the signers. The arms available today are vastly different in their capacity to kill, as is well demonstrated in the homicide stats.
DWC
(911 posts)Human Nature does not.
The Constitution is as relevant today as it was when originally written and, in some ways like the 2nd amendment, even more so.
Semper Fi,
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Has nothing, nada, zilch to do with the constitution or 2A. It is simply a fad created by fear peddling organizations like the NRA and the gun industry. Disgusting bottom feeders.
DWC
(911 posts)in the late 1700s and there are elitist and violent criminals today.
The Constitution and the BOR including the 2nd amendment are as applicable today as the day they were written.
Times change; fashions change but human nature remains the same. Understanding that fact, our Founding Fathers developed these documents that are timeless.
Semper Fi,
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Only a militia. Which militia do you belong to?
Do you think the US is the only country where elitist and violent criminals run amok, or is it the only one where guns are so readily available?
DWC
(911 posts)where elitists and violent criminals run amok. But thanks to our Constitution and the 2nd amendment in the BOR it is one of the very few Nations where its individual citizens are guaranteed the right to keep and bear the best tools available to defend their lives and their property against such vile groups and individuals.
I sincerely hope some day in the not-to-distant future the citizens of your country will enjoy the same individual rights and freedoms.
Semper Fi,
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)trouble.smith
(374 posts)wouldn't it be easier to just admit that you're wrong? Our forefathers were great men and the constitution they gave to us is one of the greatest documents ever written by man. I'll take their advice over yours anyday. No offense to you.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)trouble.smith
(374 posts)and will keep it in mind in the future.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Your forefathers were great men and I admire them on many levels. They were also traitors to the crown, but that's a minor detail.
The constitution is a very important document, though imperfect. It required many amendments along the way and there will be many to come in the future. That's called evolution. Just as those founding fathers didn't understand that slavery was a thing of the past in a civilized society, our leaders will eventually realize the same about carrying guns around. Again, it's called evolution. We usually catch on to these new trends, it just takes a while. Took about 40 years and a civil war to pick up on the abolition of slavery. Hopefully, the next growth spurt will be less painful.
BTW, why would I be offended at you taking the advice of a bunch of dead guys? After all, you don't even know me.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)to rape, murder, pillage, and enslave. It was the European man, not the American man. It was my American forefathers who put an end to the tyranny of your forefathers. They started it in 1783 and finished the job in 1865 for slavery in the American colonies was a European institution long before it was ever an American institution. True Americans despise slavery and that's yet one more reason we preserve the RKBA, to ensure that it never happens here again.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)trouble.smith
(374 posts)Any slaves that he owned were likely brought over by English slavers. Thomas Jefferson gave the world freedom, democracy, and hope. He is redeemed. What did your forefathers do to redeem themselves for the atrocities they committed in this land and others?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)are you a naturalized citizen of the United States or do you still hold citizenship to Great Britain? I know you were a cop in the UK, are originally from Manchester, and are now on a boat somewhere along the west coast of the United States, but I am curious about your citizenship status. Of course you must know where I am going with this. If you are not a naturalized citizen of the United States, I don't think your opinion of the the U.S. Constitution means as much on this forum as it would if you are a citizen of this country.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It's not ambiguous at all, except for people who want to try and twist it so that people can't own guns unless they are in the National Guard.
The amendment is quite clear. The people, not the states, not the militias, are supposed to keep and bear arms suitable for military use in times of an emergency.
It doesn't get much plainer than that.
Nor does it say that service in a militia is the only reason to keep and bear arms.
It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not mean that the only reason I go to stores is for bread, nor that stores only sell bred.
The second amendment is very plain. The people are to be the ultimate repository of military force, so that no one can trample on them.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The right is to own and keep. The right is to bear as part of a militia, not for you to carry around and use against teenage girls with toilet paper in the trunk of their car.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I suggest you re-read the second amendment:
"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."
The right is enumerated as "to keep and bear", not "to own and keep".
Also, the second amendment lists one reason for keeping and bearing arms, but does not stipulate that this is the only reason to keep and bear arms.
It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not imply that I only go to stores to buy bread, nor that bread is the only thing stores sell.
Stopping certain criminal activities is a valid use of firearms in most states. The exact criminal actions that a firearm may be used to stop vary by state.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Read the Second Amendment again. Your revisionist interpretation has absolutely no basis for support.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)name one other right that confers a collective privilege to the government to perform some duty governments always perform (like arming a military).
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)...except under strict review and due process.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I guess lots of us are automatically excluded, by age or lack of military duty. And the "militia" is always under the control of government, local, state or federal.
The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time. The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these fall into:
The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)To what purpose? The security of a free state.
Which could be anything from a civil disturbance, to sandbagging a flooding river. All Christine Gregoire needs to do is sign on the dotted line calling it up for some purpose, and I'm there.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And when they call, you go, which was the purpose of 2A. Now, let me ask you, do you take your own weapons with you? Is that how the National Guard works in Washington? Take whatever you've got laying around at home for weaponry. Maybe a Colt 45 or a BB gun or maybe a pike. Or did it actually get it's shit together during the last 200 years to provide you with more serious weapons, in case Oregon decides to invade, or Christine decides to invade Canada?
Joking aside, it's great that you contribute to public safety. 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)the Washington State National Guard or the Washington State Guard.
I am a member of the unorganized militia, per 10 United States Code § 311, and Washington RCW 38.04.030.
Yes, I have my own weapons and armor. And they are compatible with WNG and WSG armories.
I also have a big pile of sandbags, and some basic firefighting equipment.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Is it like a legal armed gang of people who only gather at the request of the governor? If it is unorganized, how is it controlled? Is there some kind of internal hierarchy, or is it just a motley crew of gun owners with sand bags?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)exists to provide a leadership structure for events when the militia is called up, subordinate to a civilian authority (the governor).
Doubtless your state has the same structure in place, though the name often varies from state to state.
I have repeatedly written my governor encouraging her to call up the militia for state security related issues, like providing manpower for flood relief.
Crickets in response so far. Makes one wonder why we bother maintaining the command and control structure of the Washington State Guard.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Here in California it seems that the only time the California State Military Reserve is called on is to support major firefighting events.
During the LA riots, we had about 12,000 National Guardsmen activated by the governor, plus about 1,500 marines from Camp Pendleton. They came in handy, as the LAPD had apparently gone into hiding during the first couple of days.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A good example of public service. Very low cost to the state, and a very large pool of manpower. Doesn't have to be about picking up a gun. Can build fire breaks, spread information door to door for evacuations, all that stuff.
DWC
(911 posts)You are not.
We welcome intelligent, thought provoking input from all sources but to misrepresent yourself as a Citizen of the United States of America directly or through omission is deceitful at best. You are free to decide for yourself what it is at worst.
Semper Fi,
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I guess they forgot to tell me that. Mind you don't choke on that flag.
DWC
(911 posts)then you are are a part of "WE"
If you are not a US Citizen, then "YOU" are not.
Are you a US Citizen?
Semper Fi,
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Amazing, innit?
Also amazing that some 32 so-odd state constitutions got it all dumb too.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They were rebel leaders and technically traitors. It behooved them to arm themselves to the teeth.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)
petronius
(26,695 posts)and skills necessary to form a militia remain available to the people as a whole...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)...an individual right. King Leonidas gave the only possible proper answer to the demand for disarmament.
There can be no interpretation otherwise.
DWC
(911 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:23 AM - Edit history (2)
We are particularly familiar with this quote here in Texas
Semper Fi,
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)...once said, "You can have my arms ammo first, 150 grains at a time."
trouble.smith
(374 posts)You just gotta love Texas.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)The SCOTUS was right in their current interpretation of the 2ndA... that's all myself and everyone else needs to know and understand.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)...that SCOTUS was wrong in the Heller and McDonald decisions. Personally, I believe that thinking collectives have rights is a step toward recognizing rights of corporations above individuals.
Response to DWC (Original post)
Post removed
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)Completely unedited, I take it.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)
How would I know which part to edit?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)that a gun has never saved anyone despite the videos I provided?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and I will repost the earlier thing as a stand alone at a later time, I haven't forgotten, but this thread is now active
again-
you want your guns so you can prevent a Columbine, a Colorado movie theatre, a Gabby Gifford incident of someone coming in a crowded place shooting up the place
there are machines that can instantly tell when someone with a gun is in the outer perimeter
and the criminal can be stopped from entering as large a perimeter as one wants to make it.
the problem is, the people inside, already have people with guns that are legal.
It's the problem of guns.
YOU CANNOT STOP THE ILLEGAL GUNS, LONG AS THOSE WITH LEGAL GUNS ARE PARADING OUTSIDE WITH THEM.
Let's say I give you personal permission to have your gun inside your home, again, providing there is ample warning to allow anyone who wants to enter the knowledge that you have one, and it is there personal right to say they do not want to enter, same as you have the right not to tell us.
I for one would not want to be an innocent in a situation where illegal stockpiling happens to be the reason the police that night would raid a house in this situation.
If that happens, I would be arrested, even though I am the anti-gun person, like they would believe me. I would be an accessory.
IF your concern is actually to get rid of illegal guns from an area you would frequent, seems easy enough to have the CORRECT solution.
All the bogus soundbytes of the NRA gunnies hides the easy answer.
and your bogus stats, do not in any way have the # of people who avoid the fight by being a man and walking away.
Using the Rocky analogy- remember when Adrienne's brother Paulie starts yelling at her, abusing her, and takes a bat and threatens her and Rocky? Rocky could beat the living daylights out of him to defuse the situation. He doesn't harm a hair on his head. He walks away. Peace reigns.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Who are you to give me permission for anything except what goes on inside your home?
You are showing your true colors more and more each day.
What bogus soundbites are you talking about? Are you saying that those videos are bogus?
Still didn't answer my question, are you still saying that a gun never saved anyone despite the videos that I posted?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)He's definitely a joke. Permission!?!? What a load of m*nk*y sp*nk!
Berserker
(3,419 posts)are you ever full of yourself.
"notice, the more I say what I say, the more followers...I see beads of sweat forming on the gunnies"
Apparently we "gunnies don't realize how fucking important you are is that really you Mahatma?
"Let's say I give you personal permission to have your gun inside your home"
Now that right there is a real knee slapper LMAO
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Most of the time it's pure gibberish and disjointed rambling.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)
Fly, my pretties, Fly!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)All I see is a bunch of rambling nonsense which doesn't make a lick of sense.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)This was one of the few posts that actually does make sense. Which part didn't you understand?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)that is the question.
I own perhaps 12 or so firearms. I own three shotguns, one 20 gauge, one 12 gauge, and one 12 gauge that was my grandfather's. These are for hunting different kinds of birds. The 20 gauge is better for smaller birds, the 12 gauge for larger ones. They also make good self-defense weapons.
I own one .45ACP semi-automatic handgun for self-defense and target shooting.
I own a .32 Smith&Wesson that belonged to my great-uncle. It is hard to find ammo for anymore and is mostly just an heirloom.
I own two .22 semi-automatic handguns for target shooting. One was my great-uncle's and only shoots standard-velocity ammo so I don't shoot it much. It is mostly just an heirloom.
I own 2 black powder revolvers for target shooting.
I own a high-powered, bolt-action rifle for hunting.
I own a civilian AK-47 for self-defense in the event of civil breakdown, such as in the aftermath of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
I own two .22 semi-automatic rifles, one with a scope and one without, for hunting small game and for target shooting.
I own two black powder musket rifles for target shooting.
I own a Smith & Wesson .44 magnum for target shooting.
I "stockpile" guns for the same reason that people "stockpile" stamps, or coins, or whatever it is people like to collect. It's fun. Shooting is an enjoyable, competitive sport. Hunting allows me to provide for my family in an emergency and defray the cost of groceries. Being able to have the choice to defend myself from bad people without resorting to a fistfight is also good.
(we need guns they chant to stop someone from breaking in a theatre, a restaurant, any place in the world
The sad truth is, most of the time when there is a violent crime that gets stopped, especially when it is a shooting, it is stopped when people with guns show up. Sometimes these bad things happen in theaters, restaurants, and other places in the world.
So the easiest thing to stop people from getting in somewhere with a gun would be more security setups so anyone with a gun would be spotted, and gun wouldn't be allowed in.
NO GUN at all would stop someone shooting a place up.
Yes, it is true, if we could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear, then all shootings would stop. And if every single place we went in the world had armed security guards and metal detectors, then we could visit such places with the relatively sure assurance that no one around us was armed and if they were, or they just tried physical violence, there would be someone nearby who could save us.
We don't live in such a world, and frankly, I'm not sure I want to. I'm not sure I foresee all the consequences to living in such a monitored, protected world. We are already awash in surveillance more than I am comfortable with.
the flaw in it is- the gunnies all have guns they say are legal and how can you stop any gun if the legal ones are allowed in.
like d'uh
There is no reason to stop the legal ones from being allowed in in the first place. People with CCW permits are hardly ever involved in crime. It's the people carrying illegally that you have to worry about, and those people aren't going to obey the law anyway. So unless you have metal detectors and armed security everywhere, what can you do?
but the NRA stockpiles money and blackmails any politician running for reelection if they make so much of a peep.
Only politicians who do not support the second amendment. In the last election, all of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA except one, and three of them were the endorsed candidate.
then they have to plead da constitution da constitution and like Mitt and Karl Rove, twist the situation
The Constitution is the bedrock upon which the country was founded. It enumerates many important ideals that encapsulate what it means to be free in America. It does have the ability to be amended, and if the people wanted it, they would get it. They don't.
Without a gun, Lincoln, JFK, RFK, JohnLennon Allard Lowenstein and zillions others would still be alive.
Without guns, you would not have a country.
Without guns, every single victim of violent crime would be left up to their own physical strengths or weaknesses to survive. They can run, submit, or fight, if they are fast enough, tough enough, or skilled enough.
DWC
(911 posts)it have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
Semper Fi,
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and we are talking person to person street crime not political stuff.
Israel police takes good care.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)because the population is armed, police, paramedics, security guards, normal citizens.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I know you are afraid of Mayor Mike, who is the first person with money and not running for reelection to go against the mighty $$$NRA$$$
Are you afraid the mafia is going to go after you or something? Or the hooligans in a soccer game going to shoot up a stadium?
It's funny that dylan and eric got their guns from their father didn't they?
Majority of shootemups used a legal gun.
It's not the (boogeymen) criminals (professional criminals don't use guns), it's the legal gun owners guns that are used for the majority of crime.
BTW-was Zimmerman's gun legal? He shot someone coward style in cold blood miles from his home who was NOT ARMED.
the fairy tale that it's illegal guns that are the problem is a big bold faced lie.
The basic rights of all Americans is the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that we all were created equal (Except Thomas Jefferson, author of our papers, kept slaves and raped and impregnated his female slaves without their consent). Great person ole' Tommy from Virginia was.
BTW-you do believe that ALL amendments are the same, do you not? From the oldest to the newest? Because ole' Tommy from Virigina specifically wrote it as a living document to be updated.
As such, one day a different court will rule different and we shall move to the modern age.
BTW-stamps are kept in album books, or framed on the war. Stamps don't load and shoot to kill as a gun does. If you want to collect, hang it on the wall.
And there are no deer sitting next to you in a bar. So why bring a gun into a bar? (and if you did see a deer sitting next to you in a bar, God help us all if you have a gun.)
And when was the last time you saw a deer watching a movie in a theatre?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)They got some of their guns from this fellow whose parents were big in the Handgun Control, Inc organization. Your read much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack_Pizza
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)he launches into a disjointed, rambling tirade. Most of the time, I can't make heads or tails of what points he's trying to make.
The funniest thing he's said so far, IMO, is that he thinks that we're afraid of his hero Mike and that Mike is going to spend his billions trying to defeat the NRA.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)...and I'll quote him again, "You can't argue with a sick mind." - Joe Walsh. 
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)He also seems to have an "Appetite for Destruction" of his talking points, doesn't he?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)...Songs For A Dying Planet ...obviously his own, not ours.
I have a mansion, forget the price
Ain't never been there, they tell me it's nice
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)tear out the walls
I have accountants
pay for it all.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)...on the road Monday - Friday every week, I kept a hotel room all the time. I used to listen to that song often and get a chuckle.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... you wouldn't use it as an contemptuous insult.
In fact, it is one of the most honourable titles ever conceived by the mind of man and many would consider it the achievement of a lifetime to obtain it.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)when you tell people another poster is out of touch, you mean crazy, loco, looney, plumb nuts, etc.
to try (like Mitt Romney and Karl Rove does) to slant the conversation and spin it your way.
Trouble is, it is a long ago technique used by professionals to distract the conversation against the mighty gun(or other topics) where they want ZERO disent of.
I figure if I get one poster looking in to think about my point of view, it is one more than used to. And it grows...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Why?
Afraid of your hero Mike? Why should I be? He's no threat to me, I've dealt with people who would make your hero Mike shit his pants and cry like a little baby.
Why should I be afraid of the Mafia? I've no beef with them as long as they don't violate any laws in my jurisdiction.
What do the Columbine shooters have to do with this thread?
Zimmerman's trial hasn't even begun yet, and unlike you, I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Guns aren't the problem, criminals with guns are the problem. A gun is nothing more than a hunk of metal and plastic, inert until a human interacts with it.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is a basic right, and to preserve that right, you sometimes need to defend that right. See how I turned that around on you. You make this so easy.
WTF do stamps have to do with anything? You don't get to tell anyone what to collect. As I told you before, the only guns in my home are my service weapon, my AR-15 which I carry in my patrol car when on the job and various hunting rifles.
Who gives a fuck if there are no deer in a bar, whats that got to do with CC?
BTW, you really shouldn't count on the SCOTUS change the recent pro gun rulings, you know, settled law and all that.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)Well, if you talk to the right guys, the South will be rising again, any day now...
Berserker
(3,419 posts)ramblings is a lot of fun it's like a puzzle. I am sure you will soon change our minds and we the gunnies will post nothing but Kittie pictures.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)more like the Rubic's Cube, just when you think you got it figured out, you don't.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)my 1st amendment right is silenced by your misreading of #2.
Now, if it were a cannon you were lugging around in your pants
not to mention my right of peaceful assembly.
and 90% of the public used to smoke
now 90% of the public quit
didn't even need an amendment to change it.
cigarettes became obsolete
gunnies obviously think they have a right to have a WMD in their possession. Amazing.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)It's not my misreading of the 2A, it's the correct interpretation according to the SC.
Who is denying your right of peaceful assembly? Nobody here is.
You mean a WMD like this?
Or one like this?
Or just for kicks, one like this?
Berserker
(3,419 posts)responding to puts his life on the line everyday. I unlike you have deep respect for that. I am a Vietnam era veteran and your lack of respect for those of us in here that are veterans or police officers is amazing.
I also find that your lack of respect for the Constitution of this United States is repulsive.
You call yourself a Democrat when you come in here and attack us with your obnoxious ramblings and trying to put us down with your hatred. What have you done for this country? Have you ever put your life on the line or just your mouth?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Thank you for noticing ... I'm just happy to see you.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I am referencing this post, not the one with the large pictures you posted of obscene guns.
I argued gunnies who were alot more pains in the asses than you guys on the last board I was on.
at least you are democrats(or say you are.)
In that other place none of them were.They were all outed as non-democrats.
And yet at the very end of the other place, I was standing tall the very last day til the board went pooof and disappeared (you can't even find much cache from it either, just up and disappeared.) My power of thought was more powerful than all their guns.
I bet Ben Franklin for one, would not have been amused by the Zimmerman's out there.
one thing we do know- the 2nd was not an individual gun right, but a collective one like the National Guard or ROTC or something. Not for stalkers like Zimmy is.
And not for the nutjobs like the Wackos at Waco that even DK couldn't control.
BTW, did I say I hope Hillary45 brings back Janet Reno in her 8 year term.
She is cocked and ready. One of the greatest most admirable patriots in USA history.
speaking of good pictures-
Here is Hero Reno with the great Eric Holder
[img]
[/img]
thankfully Mr. Holder will see to it the election this year has no shenanigans
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts) Good one!glacierbay
(2,477 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Reno took a hit for the Sec of the Treasury. ATF was not part of DoJ then. Holder is a corporate defense lawyer from one of the most conservative law firms in the US. Where was Holder when we could have had Bush et al for war crimes? BP? Wall Street?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I guess you don't even know what a gun looks like, do you?
Here's what guns look like:
This is an obscene gun"
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... without the Batman
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)...do that now:
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And do you seriously think a theater or restaurant can afford airport-level security procedures? Or that ANYONE, let alone pro-self-defense people, would put up with suc at those places?
carrying their manhood in everywhere at any time, saying their life is in danger and shooting the Trey's in the back coward style just for the fun of it
There is something deeply wrong with you .
I'd advise you to un-fornicate yourself, but it may be to late for you. Good luck with that.
The rest of your post is utter incoherency, and makes me concerned about your well-being. You might want to think about that.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Facts, or even coherency doesn't seem to matter to this one.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,742 posts)...right is like having a collective dinner. The biggest hogs closest to the trough get some.
hack89
(39,181 posts)ask President Obama if you have anymore questions.