Another Missouri Embarrassment
- Thread starter Toots_mcgee
- Start date
No ... your idea's run counter to the actual data of Gun deaths compared to other causes of death. You lie about saying that 18 and 19 yr old's are children to prop up your narrative that Gun violence is the leading cause of child deaths when any sane person knows that 18 and 19 yr old's are not children.
You believe that the need for self defense will go away if guns are taken away a laughable opinion...... In country where gun's are not readily available guess what replaces that as a means for death.... Knife homicides... Brazil 9k, South Africa 9k, India 9k, .... etc. You act like taking away the tool will stop the deranged criminal from committing said crime. they will Just move on to other means to do their bidding.
If you want a solution then you have to fix the economic issues where street violence is prominent to make crime less appealing and if you want to stop the mentally ill then identifying those traits early and treat them or incarcerating them if not treatable is the only the solution.
Taking Away guns will not hinder the highly motivated criminal who wants profit or the mentally unstable person. If you want a explosion of illegal guns and really uncommon types of weapons just keep on the same track. I have pointed it out before the war on drugs and prohibition failed as will any outright abortion ban.
Maybe I made too much of a leap from what you said: "And regulated didn't mean regulation when the constitution was written it meant well armed...AR-15 fits that definition... well disciplined... it takes discipline to use a weapon...." I don't think "armed" and "use a weapon" are all that different, however.
According to the Stanford Prof./Attorney and Pulitzer prize winner J. Rakove says that words change and diverge over time. In the 18th century... regulated meant well disciplined, well organized and it could be applied to well armed in a constitutional context.. it didn't mean regulation in the sense that we use it now in that's it's not about the regulation of the state or state regulation.
And the Framers of the Constitution believed in inherent rights...the constitution just spells those out. That People are born with those rights and just form govt to protect those rights.
And the Framers of the Constitution believed in inherent rights...the constitution just spells those out. That People are born with those rights and just form govt to protect those rights.
This is standard undergraduate English knowledge; no need to cite a Stanford professor.
So we agree that regulated as it pertains to the constitution has nothing to do with the govt. using force and laws to control the Citizens aka Militia and the fire arms they can own and the Govt shall not infringe on that right of the common citizens to bear Arms.
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.
That is one comma crazy sentence!! When reading the constitution, you must keep in perspective the time in which the creators lived, and their intentions that it be an evolving document.
To me, the 2nd Amendment simply says "we (the founders) recognize we need one organized army with strict rules representing all 13 states as one", AND "we also recognize the right of all citizens to own guns". Both very common sense ideas. I see nothing that states we cannot have laws regulating guns or any weapon. But "arms" to them meant the weapons available in the late 18th century. They had no idea of the evolution weaponry would take to today's weapons.
With the creators of our constitution intention that it be an evolving document, they expected future additions and amendments would be made as necessary. The 2nd Amendment states that citizens have a right to own guns. Nothing states that we cannot regulate weapons. The Founding Fathers would have used common sense in today's world, and common sense would tell them that we do not need guns capable of 100 rounds per minute in the hands of millions of our citizens.
That is one comma crazy sentence!! When reading the constitution, you must keep in perspective the time in which the creators lived, and their intentions that it be an evolving document.
To me, the 2nd Amendment simply says "we (the founders) recognize we need one organized army with strict rules representing all 13 states as one", AND "we also recognize the right of all citizens to own guns". Both very common sense ideas. I see nothing that states we cannot have laws regulating guns or any weapon. But "arms" to them meant the weapons available in the late 18th century. They had no idea of the evolution weaponry would take to today's weapons.
With the creators of our constitution intention that it be an evolving document, they expected future additions and amendments would be made as necessary. The 2nd Amendment states that citizens have a right to own guns. Nothing states that we cannot regulate weapons. The Founding Fathers would have used common sense in today's world, and common sense would tell them that we do not need guns capable of 100 rounds per minute in the hands of millions of our citizens.
I agree that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with making laws. However, you'll have to agree that Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is about making laws. In fact, that clause is about making "necessary and proper" laws.
It appears that you know the second amendment, but you aren't as well acquainted how it is rhetorically written and how a court could easily interpret it.
It says that the government "shall not infringe" on the right of citizens to bear arms. This sounds, on its face, like a cart blanche to be able to buy whatever firearm you like. And they could have written it that way. But they didn't. All they needed to do was add one tiny phrase: "any type of." But they didn't. Therefore, according to the "necessary and proper" clause, they are free to make laws that congress feels are "necessary and proper" including those with regard to citizen safety.
They're all originalists...until you start talking about the arms available at the time of the Constitution's writing.
What matters is now and the future. And we need to change our country so fewer innocent people are killed with guns.
I don’t give a damn about what Jefferson or Adams thought about anything. It’s irrelevant to 2023. What were their thoughts on climate change? If those people are gods wouldn’t they have seen it coming? Why no internet laws in the 18th century? Originalists are morons.
I don’t give a damn about what Jefferson or Adams thought about anything. It’s irrelevant to 2023. What were their thoughts on climate change? If those people are gods wouldn’t they have seen it coming? Why no internet laws in the 18th century? Originalists are morons.
They aren't morons. It's one of the many tools they use to justify their way of thinking. Contradictions are just ignored. I'm not saying the Democrats don't also do this. I'm just saying the Republicans definitely do this.
They try to project what our forefathers wanted into situations that our forefathers couldn’t possibly have foreseen simply to justify what they want. Moronic in my eyes.
That is your biased interpretation that doesn't even come close to the writings of that era From the Founding Fathers and their Peers who wrote about the Constitution and their interpretation of the 2A. And Infringe on the Rights is pretty much stating you can't control the rights of citizens to bear arms.
I think you are wrong about the Founding Fathers... it was legal to own cannons as a private citizens in that day and age. I doubt they would of flinched at todays weapons.
I understand you don't like the 2A as it put's up road blocks to your desire to control weapons that make you feel uneasy. But the Constitution and the Supreme court dismiss your analysis.
I could post a link to the James Madison Research Library and other cites that give explicit examples... but you will just ignore them so I won't bother.
Yes they can make laws and many of those laws have been ruled on by he Supreme court as unconstitutional per the 2A. Or do you forget the Heller and Bruno rulings... hence common use weapons cannot be infringed upon.
Then change the Constitution and try and convince half the Population to not resist your authoritarian desires.
Clearly the Founding Fathers understood that technology would advance and change, let's not make believe that these men where not as intellectually evolved as we are. Their knowledge of this advancement didn't stop them from believing that the fundamental right to Bear Arms was worthy of a Foundational right and they hard baked it into the Bill of Rights.
Again it's simple if you want to change the Foundation of this country there is a couple of clear cut ways to change the Constitution.
But good luck with that. ....
No that is the interpretation of constitutional scholars and the Supreme Court
Yea, they envisioned drones and nukes and 50 states and metro areas with 8 million people and you name it. They knew it all in 1791.
Now DeSantis is calling it “constitutional carry” blowing smoke straight up the arse of gun nuts like MG.
The federal assault weapons ban was a 10-year ban passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.[1] The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts.
The founding Fathers put in the Bill of Rights to stop parliamentary rule which it well documented they hated that idea of Willy nilly laws being past by the flavor of the month politicians to hinder what they considered natural human rights….hence the very reason the 2A was put into the constitution.
Justice Scalia’s words
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
So it appears we have differing interpretations of constitutional scholars and Supreme Courts. LOL
Forget about interpretations of biased scholars and courts, and read the 2nd Amendment as it was written. It establishes the need for a regulated national military and the right for citizens to own guns - nothing more and nothing less.
I think we can all agree that a weapon that fires up to 120 rounds in a minute with each one blowing a large hole in its target does qualify as a dangerous weapon.
Heller was a stretch. It would take just a slightly different court makeup to throw that one out. This is an interesting read written by the clerks under justices Scalia and Stevens: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/supreme-court-heller-guns.html
The same Supreme Court that made the Dred Scott decision? Let's not pretend that they don't get it wrong on occasion.
So, if you do not personally own a firearm. But you believe in someones right to them, and that right should not be taken away. Does that make you a "gun nut"? Asking for a friend.
Someone who thinks more guns will solve our gun problem is a gun nut. Someone who wants to arm teachers is a gun nut. Someone who is against red flag laws, background checks, waiting periods, registration, training, licensing…. is a gun nut.
That is the complete opposite of why the wrote the 2nd Amendment. The founding fathers hated the idea of a Standing Federal Army as they saw it was detriment to freedom and rights.
This is not a up for debate they actually wrote about this and it's easily researchable. Jefferson wrote Every Citizen must be a solider
James Madison... described as Standing Army as the greatest mischief that can happen
George Mason Once a Standing Army is established in any country the people lose their liberty
Alexander Hamilton If circumstances at anytime oblige the govt. to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to be the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, AND THE BEST POSSIBLE SECURITY AGAINST IT, if it should exist.
That is pretty blatant right there....
The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with a regulated national Military it is just the Opposite.....the founding fathers wanted a well armed Citizenship ready to fight at a moments notice and not controlled by the Federal Govt.
Some one fixated on taking away a fundamental established right is a Authoritarian NUT.
Nobody is trying to change your mind.... but the constitution and Supreme Court have ruled on this and People do have the Right to a AR-15 with 30 round clips so your belief has nothing do with it.
There is plenty of things that are legal that people don't like or want banned. It's a very oppressive idea and mindset.
Similar threads
