Bullet Serialization

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
Read it. The 2nd Amendment has a specific Purpose, it is that Purpose that most either are unaware of or ignore.

umm, its purpose is to put a limit on what the govt can do... the action part being "shall not be infringed"

Please explain to me what specific purpose you think it has, cuz this has gotta be good.

"well regulated militia..., that is the part that's pertinent.

In this case, regulated does not mean what you think it means. Could you please at least do a little basic research before attempting to comment on a topic in which you clearly have zero knowledge?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
Read it. The 2nd Amendment has a specific Purpose, it is that Purpose that most either are unaware of or ignore.

umm, its purpose is to put a limit on what the govt can do... the action part being "shall not be infringed"

Please explain to me what specific purpose you think it has, cuz this has gotta be good.

"well regulated militia..., that is the part that's pertinent.

In this case, regulated does not mean what you think it means. Could you please at least do a little basic research before attempting to comment on a topic in which you clearly have zero knowledge?

What do I think it means, I'm curious to know what my opinion is.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski
What do I think it means, I'm curious to know what my opinion is.

Pray do tell.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
The whole thing or nothing it is.

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.

commas can be translated as "and", in case you didnt know. Overall It actually reads as a list, sort of like:

The following items shall not be infringed
1) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free State)
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

there ya go.

No. 1 is correct, those 2 phrases support each other directly as you put them with "A well regulated militia" being the Subject and "being necessary to the security...State" being a clarification for the "regulated militia".

2, as you have it, is incorrect. It is not another part or second subject. It explains the "right" afforded to the People, so that a "well regulated militia" can exist. 2 as you put it is dependent on 1. It is not separate or a whole by itself. Without 1 there is no reason for 2.

You don't even know capitalization, and yet you think you can interpret the words of the Second Amendment?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
The whole thing or nothing it is.

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.

commas can be translated as "and", in case you didnt know. Overall It actually reads as a list, sort of like:

The following items shall not be infringed
1) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free State)
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

there ya go.

No. 1 is correct, those 2 phrases support each other directly as you put them with "A well regulated militia" being the Subject and "being necessary to the security...State" being a clarification for the "regulated militia".

2, as you have it, is incorrect. It is not another part or second subject. It explains the "right" afforded to the People, so that a "well regulated militia" can exist. 2 as you put it is dependent on 1. It is not separate or a whole by itself. Without 1 there is no reason for 2.

You don't even know capitalization, and yet you think you can interpret the words of the Second Amendment?

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[cwjerome]

WOW... this thread is theater absurd. Sandorski, how? why? what?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
WOW... this thread is theater absurd. Sandorski, how? why? what?

Please post again. Your opinions are intriguing.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski


Poor choice of words, but basically accurate. You buy Ammo, your name is associated with the Serials on that Ammo.

Ammo got lost, stolen or there was a tragic boat accident.

This is a stupid idea and you know it. Criminals would not use bullets with serial numbers on them, they already don't use guns with them.

You better keep track of your Ammo then or report it Stolen if it was stolen.

Do you realize what % of crimes are committed with illegally owned weapons? Why would ammo be any different.

Completely Moot.

Moot!? Moot!?! Your though process makes no sense. The vast majority of crimes are committed with weapons obtained through illegal means. Please tell me why criminals wouldn't simply steal the ammunition or illegally buy it from someone who stole it / made it themselves?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: cwjerome
WOW... this thread is theater absurd. Sandorski, how? why? what?

Please post again. Your opinions are intriguing.

Well you got me hands down there... yours are much more "intriguing."

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski


Poor choice of words, but basically accurate. You buy Ammo, your name is associated with the Serials on that Ammo.

Ammo got lost, stolen or there was a tragic boat accident.

This is a stupid idea and you know it. Criminals would not use bullets with serial numbers on them, they already don't use guns with them.

You better keep track of your Ammo then or report it Stolen if it was stolen.

Do you realize what % of crimes are committed with illegally owned weapons? Why would ammo be any different.

Completely Moot.

Moot!? Moot!?! Your though process makes no sense. The vast majority of crimes are committed with weapons obtained through illegal means. Please tell me why criminals wouldn't simply steal the ammunition or illegally buy it from someone who stole it / made it themselves?

It's simple, he's trolling.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski


Poor choice of words, but basically accurate. You buy Ammo, your name is associated with the Serials on that Ammo.

Ammo got lost, stolen or there was a tragic boat accident.

This is a stupid idea and you know it. Criminals would not use bullets with serial numbers on them, they already don't use guns with them.

You better keep track of your Ammo then or report it Stolen if it was stolen.

Do you realize what % of crimes are committed with illegally owned weapons? Why would ammo be any different.

Completely Moot.

Moot!? Moot!?! Your though process makes no sense. The vast majority of crimes are committed with weapons obtained through illegal means. Please tell me why criminals wouldn't simply steal the ammunition or illegally buy it from someone who stole it / made it themselves?

I'm sure they will.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: cwjerome
WOW... this thread is theater absurd. Sandorski, how? why? what?

Please post again. Your opinions are intriguing.

Well you got me hands down there... yours are much more "intriguing."

Hey, don't agree if you don't want to, but I have actually laid out points and valid arguments.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: cwjerome
WOW... this thread is theater absurd. Sandorski, how? why? what?

Please post again. Your opinions are intriguing.

Well you got me hands down there... yours are much more "intriguing."

Hey, don't agree if you don't want to, but I have actually laid out points and valid arguments.

Yes, yes you have... very intriguing points and arguments. You'll have to excuse my comments about this bizarre discussion. It's like a group of friends sitting around and someone starts talking about the benefits of voodoo... and everyone thinks it's a joke but the voodoo believer keeps right on going with a straight face and next thing you know everybody starts looking at each other, confused and a little worried, but still sorta thinking the voodooist is just trying to get a reaction because it's just that weird.

Stop the voodoo Sandorski!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yes, yes you have... very intriguing points and arguments. You'll have to excuse my comments about this bizarre discussion. It's like a group of friends sitting around and someone starts talking about the benefits of voodoo... and everyone thinks it's a joke but the voodoo believer keeps right on going with a straight face and next thing you know everybody starts looking at each other, confused and a little worried, but still sorta thinking the voodooist is just trying to get a reaction because it's just that weird.

Stop the voodoo Sandorski!

:laugh: Nominated for Analogy of the Year!

That is exactly how this discussion feels! Perfect!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: cwjerome
WOW... this thread is theater absurd. Sandorski, how? why? what?

Please post again. Your opinions are intriguing.

Well you got me hands down there... yours are much more "intriguing."

Hey, don't agree if you don't want to, but I have actually laid out points and valid arguments.

Yes, yes you have... very intriguing points and arguments. You'll have to excuse my comments about this bizarre discussion. It's like a group of friends sitting around and someone starts talking about the benefits of voodoo... and everyone thinks it's a joke but the voodoo believer keeps right on going with a straight face and next thing you know everybody starts looking at each other, confused and a little worried, but still sorta thinking the voodooist is just trying to get a reaction because it's just that weird.

Stop the voodoo Sandorski!

Thank you for posting.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski


Poor choice of words, but basically accurate. You buy Ammo, your name is associated with the Serials on that Ammo.

Ammo got lost, stolen or there was a tragic boat accident.

This is a stupid idea and you know it. Criminals would not use bullets with serial numbers on them, they already don't use guns with them.

You better keep track of your Ammo then or report it Stolen if it was stolen.

Do you realize what % of crimes are committed with illegally owned weapons? Why would ammo be any different.

Completely Moot.

Moot!? Moot!?! Your though process makes no sense. The vast majority of crimes are committed with weapons obtained through illegal means. Please tell me why criminals wouldn't simply steal the ammunition or illegally buy it from someone who stole it / made it themselves?

I'm sure they will.

Then there is absolutely no reason to serialize the ammunition. You just finished yourself off again.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski


Poor choice of words, but basically accurate. You buy Ammo, your name is associated with the Serials on that Ammo.

Ammo got lost, stolen or there was a tragic boat accident.

This is a stupid idea and you know it. Criminals would not use bullets with serial numbers on them, they already don't use guns with them.

You better keep track of your Ammo then or report it Stolen if it was stolen.

Do you realize what % of crimes are committed with illegally owned weapons? Why would ammo be any different.

Completely Moot.

Moot!? Moot!?! Your though process makes no sense. The vast majority of crimes are committed with weapons obtained through illegal means. Please tell me why criminals wouldn't simply steal the ammunition or illegally buy it from someone who stole it / made it themselves?

I'm sure they will.

Then there is absolutely no reason to serialize the ammunition. You just finished yourself off again.

I've already explained why you're wrong. As that was the second time I had answered that question. Go back, read the thread.

That said, this discussion has gone way off track. I've laid out my position(s) and, like your side, am not likely to change them.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no "Deterence". That is not the point.

What is the point?

Sandorski wants guns banned. That is Sandorski's point.

Well, yes, I want the ability to have Guns Banned, but this doesn't necessarily lead to that happening. It is to make weapons/Ammo traceable back to a Person. It will aid in the solving of Crimes and/or to those who supply Criminals.

Deterence is just not an effective force. If it was, the Death Penalty would have such a dramatic effect on US Murder rates that it would be the lowest rate amongst the First World. It is, as you know, the highest.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. You don't care whether or not it works, so there is no point in arguing that with you. You only want this because it makes it harder for the average citizen to afford a weapon. It's the shotgun approach: who cares if something works or not, just throw a bunch of laws and regulations at a problem, eventually everything becomes so confusing, beauracratic (sp?), and difficult to handle that the end result is the same; the average law abiding citizen will not have weapons.*

And why do you keep capitalizing Common Nouns in your Sentences? Only Proper Nouns need capitalization, such as the Name of a Person, City, State, or Country. You don't need to capitalize Bullet Serialization in your Discussion.

*unless you are a "special" citizen like California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, despite her ardent support for gun control, not only owns a gun herself, but is legally allowed to carry it concealed for her own protection in the state of California! But it's ok for her to do that, she's more important than the rest of us, and also smarter, so she knows how to handle the weapon.

You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

Paranoia is defined as an irrational fear of something, without actual evidence. I'm afraid that there are people out there who would like to ban guns. You STATED that you are one of those people. Diane Feinstein has STATED on PUBLIC RECORD that she would like to ban all guns. So how does that make me paranoid?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no "Deterence". That is not the point.

What is the point?

Sandorski wants guns banned. That is Sandorski's point.

Well, yes, I want the ability to have Guns Banned, but this doesn't necessarily lead to that happening. It is to make weapons/Ammo traceable back to a Person. It will aid in the solving of Crimes and/or to those who supply Criminals.

Deterence is just not an effective force. If it was, the Death Penalty would have such a dramatic effect on US Murder rates that it would be the lowest rate amongst the First World. It is, as you know, the highest.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. You don't care whether or not it works, so there is no point in arguing that with you. You only want this because it makes it harder for the average citizen to afford a weapon. It's the shotgun approach: who cares if something works or not, just throw a bunch of laws and regulations at a problem, eventually everything becomes so confusing, beauracratic (sp?), and difficult to handle that the end result is the same; the average law abiding citizen will not have weapons.*

And why do you keep capitalizing Common Nouns in your Sentences? Only Proper Nouns need capitalization, such as the Name of a Person, City, State, or Country. You don't need to capitalize Bullet Serialization in your Discussion.

*unless you are a "special" citizen like California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, despite her ardent support for gun control, not only owns a gun herself, but is legally allowed to carry it concealed for her own protection in the state of California! But it's ok for her to do that, she's more important than the rest of us, and also smarter, so she knows how to handle the weapon.

You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

Paranoia is defined as an irrational fear of something, without actual evidence. I'm afraid that there are people out there who would like to ban guns. You STATED that you are one of those people. Diane Feinstein has STATED on PUBLIC RECORD that she would like to ban all guns. So how does that make me paranoid?

It is why the loss of Guns upsets you, the Fear of helplessness, based upon nothing.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no "Deterence". That is not the point.

What is the point?

Sandorski wants guns banned. That is Sandorski's point.

Well, yes, I want the ability to have Guns Banned, but this doesn't necessarily lead to that happening. It is to make weapons/Ammo traceable back to a Person. It will aid in the solving of Crimes and/or to those who supply Criminals.

Deterence is just not an effective force. If it was, the Death Penalty would have such a dramatic effect on US Murder rates that it would be the lowest rate amongst the First World. It is, as you know, the highest.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. You don't care whether or not it works, so there is no point in arguing that with you. You only want this because it makes it harder for the average citizen to afford a weapon. It's the shotgun approach: who cares if something works or not, just throw a bunch of laws and regulations at a problem, eventually everything becomes so confusing, beauracratic (sp?), and difficult to handle that the end result is the same; the average law abiding citizen will not have weapons.*

And why do you keep capitalizing Common Nouns in your Sentences? Only Proper Nouns need capitalization, such as the Name of a Person, City, State, or Country. You don't need to capitalize Bullet Serialization in your Discussion.

*unless you are a "special" citizen like California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, despite her ardent support for gun control, not only owns a gun herself, but is legally allowed to carry it concealed for her own protection in the state of California! But it's ok for her to do that, she's more important than the rest of us, and also smarter, so she knows how to handle the weapon.

You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

Paranoia is defined as an irrational fear of something, without actual evidence. I'm afraid that there are people out there who would like to ban guns. You STATED that you are one of those people. Diane Feinstein has STATED on PUBLIC RECORD that she would like to ban all guns. So how does that make me paranoid?

It is why the loss of Guns upsets you, the Fear of helplessness, based upon nothing.

Ok, gotcha. Now I understand, I can count on the police to protect me when the criminal with the gun decides to enter my home. I don't know what I've been worried about all this time, the police are there to save me!

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no "Deterence". That is not the point.

What is the point?

Sandorski wants guns banned. That is Sandorski's point.

Well, yes, I want the ability to have Guns Banned, but this doesn't necessarily lead to that happening. It is to make weapons/Ammo traceable back to a Person. It will aid in the solving of Crimes and/or to those who supply Criminals.

Deterence is just not an effective force. If it was, the Death Penalty would have such a dramatic effect on US Murder rates that it would be the lowest rate amongst the First World. It is, as you know, the highest.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. You don't care whether or not it works, so there is no point in arguing that with you. You only want this because it makes it harder for the average citizen to afford a weapon. It's the shotgun approach: who cares if something works or not, just throw a bunch of laws and regulations at a problem, eventually everything becomes so confusing, beauracratic (sp?), and difficult to handle that the end result is the same; the average law abiding citizen will not have weapons.*

And why do you keep capitalizing Common Nouns in your Sentences? Only Proper Nouns need capitalization, such as the Name of a Person, City, State, or Country. You don't need to capitalize Bullet Serialization in your Discussion.

*unless you are a "special" citizen like California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, despite her ardent support for gun control, not only owns a gun herself, but is legally allowed to carry it concealed for her own protection in the state of California! But it's ok for her to do that, she's more important than the rest of us, and also smarter, so she knows how to handle the weapon.

You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

Paranoia is defined as an irrational fear of something, without actual evidence. I'm afraid that there are people out there who would like to ban guns. You STATED that you are one of those people. Diane Feinstein has STATED on PUBLIC RECORD that she would like to ban all guns. So how does that make me paranoid?

It is why the loss of Guns upsets you, the Fear of helplessness, based upon nothing.

Ok, gotcha. Now I understand, I can count on the police to protect me when the criminal with the gun decides to enter my home. I don't know what I've been worried about all this time, the police are there to save me!

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Ya, that paranoia.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no "Deterence". That is not the point.

What is the point?

Sandorski wants guns banned. That is Sandorski's point.

Well, yes, I want the ability to have Guns Banned, but this doesn't necessarily lead to that happening. It is to make weapons/Ammo traceable back to a Person. It will aid in the solving of Crimes and/or to those who supply Criminals.

Deterence is just not an effective force. If it was, the Death Penalty would have such a dramatic effect on US Murder rates that it would be the lowest rate amongst the First World. It is, as you know, the highest.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. You don't care whether or not it works, so there is no point in arguing that with you. You only want this because it makes it harder for the average citizen to afford a weapon. It's the shotgun approach: who cares if something works or not, just throw a bunch of laws and regulations at a problem, eventually everything becomes so confusing, beauracratic (sp?), and difficult to handle that the end result is the same; the average law abiding citizen will not have weapons.*

And why do you keep capitalizing Common Nouns in your Sentences? Only Proper Nouns need capitalization, such as the Name of a Person, City, State, or Country. You don't need to capitalize Bullet Serialization in your Discussion.

*unless you are a "special" citizen like California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, despite her ardent support for gun control, not only owns a gun herself, but is legally allowed to carry it concealed for her own protection in the state of California! But it's ok for her to do that, she's more important than the rest of us, and also smarter, so she knows how to handle the weapon.

You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

Paranoia is defined as an irrational fear of something, without actual evidence. I'm afraid that there are people out there who would like to ban guns. You STATED that you are one of those people. Diane Feinstein has STATED on PUBLIC RECORD that she would like to ban all guns. So how does that make me paranoid?

It is why the loss of Guns upsets you, the Fear of helplessness, based upon nothing.

Ok, gotcha. Now I understand, I can count on the police to protect me when the criminal with the gun decides to enter my home. I don't know what I've been worried about all this time, the police are there to save me!

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Ya, that paranoia.

No, that absolute irrefutable logic based on thousands of years of overwhelming evidence with absolutely no counter-argument whatsoever. If you can make a logical counter to that statement, please do so. Otherwise piss off.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no "Deterence". That is not the point.

What is the point?

Sandorski wants guns banned. That is Sandorski's point.

Well, yes, I want the ability to have Guns Banned, but this doesn't necessarily lead to that happening. It is to make weapons/Ammo traceable back to a Person. It will aid in the solving of Crimes and/or to those who supply Criminals.

Deterence is just not an effective force. If it was, the Death Penalty would have such a dramatic effect on US Murder rates that it would be the lowest rate amongst the First World. It is, as you know, the highest.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. You don't care whether or not it works, so there is no point in arguing that with you. You only want this because it makes it harder for the average citizen to afford a weapon. It's the shotgun approach: who cares if something works or not, just throw a bunch of laws and regulations at a problem, eventually everything becomes so confusing, beauracratic (sp?), and difficult to handle that the end result is the same; the average law abiding citizen will not have weapons.*

And why do you keep capitalizing Common Nouns in your Sentences? Only Proper Nouns need capitalization, such as the Name of a Person, City, State, or Country. You don't need to capitalize Bullet Serialization in your Discussion.

*unless you are a "special" citizen like California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, despite her ardent support for gun control, not only owns a gun herself, but is legally allowed to carry it concealed for her own protection in the state of California! But it's ok for her to do that, she's more important than the rest of us, and also smarter, so she knows how to handle the weapon.

You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

Paranoia is defined as an irrational fear of something, without actual evidence. I'm afraid that there are people out there who would like to ban guns. You STATED that you are one of those people. Diane Feinstein has STATED on PUBLIC RECORD that she would like to ban all guns. So how does that make me paranoid?

It is why the loss of Guns upsets you, the Fear of helplessness, based upon nothing.

Ok, gotcha. Now I understand, I can count on the police to protect me when the criminal with the gun decides to enter my home. I don't know what I've been worried about all this time, the police are there to save me!

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Ya, that paranoia.

Paranoia of WHAT? Do you dispute that there are bad people in this world? Do you believe that the police are always there to protect you? Please answer each of these questions directly.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
...

In commentary written by Justice Cummings in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in 2001 that:[47]

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

That quote is meaningless to the subject at hand. It's context is unknown.

Barney style:

He's a supreme court justice, his job is to interpret the constitution. Its pretty clear he is doing just that, clarifying the exact argument you are trying to make. The subject at hand (how is it not clear?!!?) is the 2nd ammendment itself.

Ah ok, I'll take your word for it. That said, I'd be interested what other Judges have to say on the subject. I certainly wouldn't come to the same conclusion he has.

Did you even read the wikipedia link? [of course you didnt!] As i already stated[I'm sure you glossed over that too], it has case law going back to the very beginning of the USA, as well as the origins of the concept of the right itself going back hundreds of years prior.

No but you read the words "well regulated" and for some reason come to a different conclusion than every interpretation of the supreme court in that last 230+ years?

wow! how did we miss that? All these years none of the hundreds judges must have ALL misinterpreted it, and here you come like a messiah to set us straight!

Do you even know what a militia is? A militia is a group of free citizens, who arm themselves. As MANY, MANY, MANY people who have deciphered the 2nd amendment over the years have pointed out (and you would see by now if read anything) that the individual right to bear arms is IMPLICIT in the right to form militias.

So even IF the 2nd amendment was stipped down to just a simple "right to militia", the individual right ot bear arms is a necessary step in that right.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Train
No but you read the words "well regulated" and for some reason come to a different conclusion than every interpretation of the supreme court in that last 230+ years?

wow! how did we miss that? All these years none of the hundreds judges must have ALL misinterpreted it, and here you come like a messiah to set us straight!

Not to take away from your point, as you are generally correct, but there is very little in terms of Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment as it has been mostly ignored throughout the years.

And there have been plenty of judges that have misinterpreted the second amendment. Just look at the Heller vs. DC case... 4/9 Supreme Court justices dissented.