quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmyc

What so many don't understand is how important guns, gas guzzlers and being free to hit your wife and girlfriend are to guys with little dicks.

Wow, you broke your forum cherry for that? Way to make a first impression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.

Your explanation doesn't ,and never will,hold water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
If you care than you are willing to do something about it.....something more substantial than paying lip service to caring.
And that "something" in order to have any impact starts with admitting that there needs to be a new "reading" of the Second.

There are many that would agree with you.
Unfortunately, nobody in power in the US has done it and isn't likely to any day soon.
Basically, nobody with any power has the balls to shake the ancient tree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
An understanding that "individual" can not be separated from "well regulated militia" in the understanding of the Second.

Unfortunately mike, the Supreme Court disagree with your interpretation of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Failing that,the only other thing to do is scrap the whole thing and rewrite it with a clear understanding of modern society and the weapons that have been developed since the days of the musket.

Personally, I agree with you.
But that doesn't alter the fact that it ain't gonna happen soon and probably not in my lifetime.

From Wiki: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government. Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.

Until the Supreme court overturn its earlier ruling, the constitution is interpreted as per their 2008 decision.

As per the second paragraph, we (the Brits) also have a right to bear arms just like you do in the US.
The difference being, we don't like the regular killings so we allowed our government to curtail the general availability of arms in the UK.
And to be honest, many of us here (and those in a similar situation, ie; Canada, Australia etc) feel much better for it.
However, an awful lot of Americans are still in the mindset of 200+ years ago: "can have it, will have it, must have it; and you can't take it away from me.. so there!!".

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

Well, there are two glaring errors in this post:

#1 You asked for rational.
#2 You asked for mature.

Clear the runway for the imminent crash and burn.

I would love to have a mature rational conversation on the subject but I don't think I have been in one of these yet where I have not be given some form of telling me that I don't care how many people get killed as long as I get to fondle my guns.

Okay ,let's check that box off than.....
You really don't care how many get killed as long as you can fondle your guns.
Now that may piss you off,but think about it.No matter the carnage(see Sandy Hook) you are never going to agree that as a result of such carnage your second amendment rights(as you read them ) shall be infringed !
Is there something wrong with that assertion ?
If so,point it out.Explain to me where the tipping point is.Tell me just how many need to die before you see the rational behind an infringement on that right.
If you can't quantify the number than the statement is indeed true.
No amount of carnage will affect your views on the matter.So indeed you do not care,at least not sufficiently enough to be willing to do something about it

I have told you repeatedly that I do care, you just refuse to believe it.
I murder is too many but ignoring one part of the Constitution is too many.
You are clearly too biased on this subject to see anything but what you want too.
Thank you for demonstrating the close mindedness of the anti-gun crowd.

If you care than you are willing to do something about it.....something more substantial than paying lip service to caring.
And that "something" in order to have any impact starts with admitting that there needs to be a new "reading" of the Second.
An understanding that "individual" can not be separated from "well regulated militia" in the understanding of the Second.
Failing that,the only other thing to do is scrap the whole thing and rewrite it with a clear understanding of modern society and the weapons that have been developed since the days of the musket.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
If you care than you are willing to do something about it.....something more substantial than paying lip service to caring.
And that "something" in order to have any impact starts with admitting that there needs to be a new "reading" of the Second.

There are many that would agree with you.
Unfortunately, nobody in power in the US has done it and isn't likely to any day soon.
Basically, nobody with any power has the balls to shake the ancient tree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
An understanding that "individual" can not be separated from "well regulated militia" in the understanding of the Second.

Unfortunately mike, the Supreme Court disagree with your interpretation of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Failing that,the only other thing to do is scrap the whole thing and rewrite it with a clear understanding of modern society and the weapons that have been developed since the days of the musket.

Personally, I agree with you.
But that doesn't alter the fact that it ain't gonna happen soon and probably not in my lifetime.

From Wiki: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government. Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.

Until the Supreme court overturn its earlier ruling, the constitution is interpreted as per their 2008 decision.

As per the second paragraph, we (the Brits) also have a right to bear arms just like you do in the US.
The difference being, we don't like the regular killings so we allowed our government to curtail the general availability of arms in the UK.
And to be honest, many of us here (and those in a similar situation, ie; Canada, Australia etc) feel much better for it.
However, an awful lot of Americans are still in the mindset of 200+ years ago: "can have it, will have it, must have it; and you can't take it away from me.. so there!!".

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No the British have the privilege of owning guns, not the right, btw have you started obeying British weapons laws yet or is that still just for the peasants?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And ignoring the butchers bill refutes your assertion to caring.
No matter the size of the bill,no matter the age of the victims your understanding of the Constitution trumps the grief of the victims.
So please,have a little intellectual honesty and admit that as long as other people bear the cost,no price is too high for you to enjoy the right to fondle your damm weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No the British have the privilege of owning guns, not the right, btw have you started obeying British weapons laws yet or is that still just for the peasants?

Right? Privilege? Amendment? Regulation? Access?

All of them are concepts of law. That the British call it a privilege like we Americans call it a right. When people in America talk about rights, have you ever actually asked them to rattle off those rights?

Go for it, BamaD. Ask those closest to you to rattle off the 1st amendment. All five parts of it. But dont tell them it has five parts. Then ask about the 3rd and 7th amendments. After that, rattle off parts from the 5th and 6th and see if they can guess which one belongs in which amendment. And their knowledge of the exceptions with the 4th amendment.

All those amendments are just laws. What a law creates, can be removed with another law. Example: 18th and 21st amendments. Kinda of like what that comedian talked about. Oh that's right, you didnt watch the video.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Mature and rational starts from a standpoint of recognizing that other people with differing views than yours may be right in some areas. You've shown no such recognition.

I'm ok with that, CD. Address the number of points the Comedian made. Rationally and honestly. Because he makes quite a number of good points. I haven't seen you or anyone else that is 'against' this thread acknowledge let alone give a fair and objective rebuttal.

I have in the past (on many threads I might add), acknowledge that other people have a right to an opinion. Unfortunately, we still have kids getting killed in droves with firearms. Ever attend one of those funerals? They really are not joy-est events of 2nd amendment freedoms....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And ignoring the butchers bill refutes your assertion to caring.
No matter the size of the bill,no matter the age of the victims your understanding of the Constitution trumps the grief of the victims.
So please,have a little intellectual honesty and admit that as long as other people bear the cost,no price is too high for you to enjoy the right to fondle your damm weapons.

My god this is a stupid post,
You clearly don't even know that far more crimes are stopped with firearms than committed with them, the FBI says something on the order of 650,000 times a year, and this figure is far more under reported than any crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

FR
Yeah the video was funny, LMAO ha ha ha, full of crap and misinterprets a few things but such is the nature of comedy. One good point he makes is you can change the fucking amendment. It's the only argument you guys could have that makes any sense but I rarely see anyone going there. I would be against it of course unless the new amendment was to clarify the militia clause but the arguments on this subject just end up being too redundant to go point by point refuting joethers and others silly interpretations of the Second Amendment and especially the stupid notion that ya need to be a part of some organized militia before the Second Anendment applies. Been there a bunch of times, done that and it's pretty useless. You guys will never get it no natter how many times you've been proven wrong, nor would you want to. As for the rest of you guys on my side of the isle, stock up on ammo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No the British have the privilege of owning guns, not the right, btw have you started obeying British weapons laws yet or is that still just for the peasants?

Right? Privilege? Amendment? Regulation? Access?

All of them are concepts of law. That the British call it a privilege like we Americans call it a right. When people in America talk about rights, have you ever actually asked them to rattle off those rights?

Go for it, BamaD. Ask those closest to you to rattle off the 1st amendment. All five parts of it. But dont tell them it has five parts. Then ask about the 3rd and 7th amendments. After that, rattle off parts from the 5th and 6th and see if they can guess which one belongs in which amendment. And their knowledge of the exceptions with the 4th amendment.

All those amendments are just laws. What a law creates, can be removed with another law. Example: 18th and 21st amendments. Kinda of like what that comedian talked about. Oh that's right, you didnt watch the video.

You clearly don't know the kind of people I hang around with.
Even if they couldn't it wouldn't prove that your aren't talking out your ass about the 2nd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Someone as wise as you should know there is a huge difference between a right and a privilege, but then being from the Peoples Republic of MA you may not.

quote:

igor2003
(3) And lastly, at about the 13:00 mark, he argues about how in Australia it costs $34,000 on the black market to buy a Bushmaster rifle, and that anyone with that kind of money doesn't need to be a criminal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

FR
Yeah the video was funny, LMAO ha ha ha, full of crap and misinterprets a few things but such is the nature of comedy. One good point he makes is you can change the fucking amendment. It's the only argument you guys could have that makes any sense but I rarely see anyone going there. I would be against it of course unless the new amendment was to clarify the militia clause but the arguments on this subject just end up being too redundant to go point by point refuting joethers and others silly interpretations of the Second Amendment and especially the stupid notion that ya need to be a part of some organized militia before the Second Anendment applies. Been there a bunch of times, done that and it's pretty useless. You guys will never get it no natter how many times you've been proven wrong, nor would you want to. As for the rest of you guys on my side of the isle, stock up on ammo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

FR
Yeah the video was funny, LMAO ha ha ha, full of crap and misinterprets a few things but such is the nature of comedy. One good point he makes is you can change the fucking amendment. It's the only argument you guys could have that makes any sense but I rarely see anyone going there. I would be against it of course unless the new amendment was to clarify the militia clause but the arguments on this subject just end up being too redundant to go point by point refuting joethers and others silly interpretations of the Second Amendment and especially the stupid notion that ya need to be a part of some organized militia before the Second Anendment applies. Been there a bunch of times, done that and it's pretty useless. You guys will never get it no natter how many times you've been proven wrong, nor would you want to. As for the rest of you guys on my side of the isle, stock up on ammo.

Fuck you muffin....we do in fact agree about one thing.....You guys will never get it

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

FR
Yeah the video was funny, LMAO ha ha ha, full of crap and misinterprets a few things but such is the nature of comedy. One good point he makes is you can change the fucking amendment. It's the only argument you guys could have that makes any sense but I rarely see anyone going there. I would be against it of course unless the new amendment was to clarify the militia clause but the arguments on this subject just end up being too redundant to go point by point refuting joethers and others silly interpretations of the Second Amendment and especially the stupid notion that ya need to be a part of some organized militia before the Second Anendment applies. Been there a bunch of times, done that and it's pretty useless. You guys will never get it no natter how many times you've been proven wrong, nor would you want to. As for the rest of you guys on my side of the isle, stock up on ammo.

I had suggested another amendment. That it update the 2nd amendment to apply towards organized groups that might augment local police forces in a time of need. An that the recognition that self defense is important to the individual to experience liberty. How the exact wording would work, I never clarified nor decided upon. Most of the gun nuts were fully against it just the notion. Sort of bewildered me at the time, as I thought I was making a decent compromised. That we might flesh out the exact writing of it. That perhaps we might understand the troubles the founding father's had with the 1st and 2nd amendments (and they did have problems).

Its all there in the search feature if you want to look it up. Given the number of 2nd amendment threads on here, that process might take you some time to uncover.