2nd Amendment was never intended to restrict state level gun control.

[xj0hnx]

John and Venix all you have done is crap on my thread on what was the original intent of the 14th amendment, and what rights did the authors intend to protect.

Your thread started as crap, we improved it.

 

[DCal430]

Venix tries to help you out by translating your idiocy, and you call him dumb? You really are a pathetic example of human.

No he didn't try to help me out, he flat out lied about what you said and what I said.

 

[DCal430]

Your thread started as crap, we improved it.

You are just a f-ing dumb loser. Nothing but a troll. On ignore for good now, stupid troll.

 

[xj0hnx]

No he didn't try to help me out, he flat out lied about what you said and what I said.

No he didn't, you are just not smart enough to understand what I said. Oh, and let me prove you a liar ...

They were written to keep the federal government from infringing on the people's rights ...period

But regardless the 2nd doesn't say "shall not be infringed, except by the states", it says "shall not be infringed"

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.

 

[DCal430]

Troll on ignore, can't see his trolling comments.

 

[xj0hnx]

Troll on ignore, can't see his trolling comments.

Child burying head in the sand after ass pounding.

 

[Venix]

venix you need to actually read and think. i never said intent of the 2nd wasn't relevant. I am communicating just fine, john has repeated stated that authors of the 2nd amendment intended it to apply to the states too. If you could actually read you would see this. Really you need to learn to read.

If you actually bother to read what people write you would see john has repeatedly stated that this bold part is wrong.

people are talking about the intent of the 2nd amendment, but really when it comes to most gun control that isn’t important

My understanding of xJ0hnx's posts is that he's referring to the difference between government-granted rights and natural rights. Perhaps that's inaccurate. I really don't care.

The premise of this thread is still silly, as is your inability to express yourself without flying into a blind rage and insulting everyone. Calm down and grow up.

 

[DCal430]

My understanding of xJ0hnx's posts is that he's referring to the difference between government-granted rights and natural rights. Perhaps that's inaccurate. I really don't care.

The premise of this thread is still silly, as is your inability to express yourself without flying into a blind rage and insulting everyone. Calm down and grow up.

First of all you and John started insulting me first, so you are the one who needs to grow up. I expressed my self just fine you just lied about what people said, and started thread crapping.

He was very clear in his post that authors of the 2nd intended it to restricts the states. You are clearly dishonest person. Anyways you are on ignore now too.

 

[Screech]

Courts have generally agreed for quite some time now (ie, since shortly after reconstruction) that despite the bill of rights initially only really applying to the federal government, the 14th extends the bill of rights to the state governments (and any powers they delegate, ie, municipal areas). I'm not quite sure what there is (if anything) to debate about this.

Also note, the 2nd reads "shall not be infringed", not "shall not be infringed by the federal government". Of course, with the 14th, this is now irrelevant.

 

[DCal430]

Courts have generally agreed for quite some time now (ie, since shortly after reconstruction) that despite the bill of rights initially only really applying to the federal government, the 14th extends the bill of rights to the state governments (and any powers they delegate, ie, municipal areas). I'm not quite sure what there is (if anything) to debate about this.

Also note, the 2nd reads "shall not be infringed", not "shall not be infringed by the federal government". Of course, with the 14th, this is now irrelevant.

Yes that is what the courts have decided, but did the authors intend for the 14th to apply all of the rights in bill of rights, including the second. Was it suppose to be as if the 2nd was now written for the states as well. Was that their intent.

 

[Screech]

Yes that is what the courts have decided, but did the authors intend for the 14th to apply all of the rights in bill of rights, including the second. Was it suppose to be as if the 2nd was now written for the states as well. Was that their intent.

The authors did not say "Congress shall not...." in the 2nd as in the first but rather simply that the rights of the people shall not be infringed. Being as the revolution had as a notable aspect the citizens in many states joining together into state militia and taking part in various battles (see cowpens for example), I doubt the founders had any idea that the state governments would be trying to ban guns, so they probably doubted that this was a realistic issue to even discuss. But again, it does not read that congress is not allowed to infringe upon these rights, but rather, that these rights shall not be infringed.

Edit: their intent was quite clear from a number of quotes about firearms from the founders -- they aren't difficult to find. I find it incredible that anybody even brings that up anymore. They wanted an armed populace -- the revolution would not have happened in the first place without one.

 

[xj0hnx]

My understanding of xJ0hnx's posts is that he's referring to the difference between government-granted rights and natural rights. Perhaps that's inaccurate. I really don't care.

The premise of this thread is still silly, as is your inability to express yourself without flying into a blind rage and insulting everyone. Calm down and grow up.

Correct, on both accounts.

First of all you and John started insulting me first, so you are the one who needs to grow up. I expressed my self just fine you just lied about what people said, and started thread crapping.

He was very clear in his post that authors of the 2nd intended it to restricts the states. You are clearly dishonest person. Anyways you are on ignore now too.

I've already posted my own quote to show that you are lying, but please, keep making shit up, it only serves to further expose you idiocy.

 

[tcsenter]

One of the main proponents or sponsors of the 14th Amendment commented extensively. Among the rights being routinely violated and necessitating federal protection were states depriving blacks and other minorities of RKBA.

 

[werepossum]

It's scary how clueless and wrong you are. Please snip your sack so you can't reproduce. The bolded above is quite possibly the most stupid, and ignorant bullshit I have heard to date.

You do understand that the government, nor the Constitution gives us our rights, but instead the Constitution protects the rights we have, and tells the government what it can, and can not do that effects those rights ...right? Right.

This. The Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights spelled out and limited the power of the federal government by specifically recognizing some rights provided by our Creator. The Fourteenth Amendment was an admission that since these are natural rights, no lesser government could infringe on these G-d given rights either.

 

[zinfamous]

I have a hard time believing you were the fastest sperm.

niiiiice. I'm gonna use that one in the future. I hope you don't mind.

 

[zinfamous]

You are just a f-ing dumb loser. Nothing but a troll. On ignore for good now, stupid troll.

so, this is how this thread breaks down:

--You post some hilarious misreading of an article you probably skimmed over, and go confrontational before anyone can eve respond.
--plenty of posters come in to point out how wrong, or simply lazy you are in this interpretation
--you retort with "dumb," "retard," "Troll," "moron..." and that's pretty much it.
--block people that call you out.

make a dumb thread, get your ass handed to you, call everyone dumb then block them.

why are you still here, again? Is it because we just like to keep the chin around?

 

[MicahC]

I love how everyone is a constitutional lawyer all of a sudden...

Or a politician. Everyone complains about politicians. If you are so great, run for office.

 

[irishScott]

Hey! It's a DCal idiotic rationalization thread! *popcorn*

 

[HumblePie]

self pwnage thread here again. Almost as bad as techs signature self pwnage thread and DCal participated against techs in that thread. Which makes this even more interesting in the self pwnage respect.

 

[blankslate]

You'd crap your pants and excoriate me for bringing up little known histories about the 2nd amendment and factors that led to the use of the word state instead on nation within the 1st part of it.

so I won't but that's just Bogus

 

[Triumph]

So I totally agree with dcal on this one, the 2A applies to the fed. Therefore, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, which prohibit me from buying a fully automatic M249 squad automatic weapon, are completely unconstitutional, and should be abolished.