I have questions for 2A absolutists

[ivwshane]

And the current SC view is the law until stated otherwise.

Presser v Illinois was the first true statement of your point, and it was from 1886, a full century after the 2A was established. Regardless of that ruling, I'm not familiar with any states actually restricting lawful gun ownership, and in 2009 it re-affirmed (read, corrected) the 1886 decision. You may feel all you want that it was a wrong decision, but it was the decision and it is the current interpretation of the 2A. Again, if you wish this to be otherwise, either bring suit that will rise to the SC in such a way that they'll overturn it yet again, or get another amendment passed.

Lol

No, I'll wait till Democrats pack the court and make it so the federal government can take away your precious guns and I'll be laughing in your face while pointing out the hypocrisy of you accepting 150 years of precedent being thrown out by judges with an inconsistent ideology, only to complain when its undone under a similar manner.

All you've got is a recent ruling, you can't refute the language of the 2nd, you can't refute the rest of the constitution, and you can't refute previous case laws.

Enjoy your newly acquired right which you gun nutters will surely lose due to a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[glenn1]

Lol

No, I'll wait till Democrats pack the court and make it so the federal government can take away your precious guns and I'll be laughing in your face while pointing out the hypocrisy of you accepting 150 years of precedent being thrown out by judges with an inconsistent ideology, only to complain when its undone under a similar manner.

All you've got is a recent ruling, you can't refute the language of the 2nd, you can't refute the rest of the constitution, and you can't refute previous case laws.

Enjoy your newly acquired right which you gun nutters will surely lose due to a self fulfilling prophecy.

So which do you believe, that 2A is a states right or that it isn't since you're dreaming of the day the " federal government can take away your precious guns"?

Either way, that's probably when a statement from another founding document comes into play: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

 

[ivwshane]

So which do you believe, that 2A is a states right or that it isn't since you're dreaming of the day the " federal government can take away your precious guns"?

Either way, that's probably when a statement from another founding document comes into play: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

When people get old, does reading compensation get worse?

The 2nd is a states right. Period.

As to my other comment, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the other poster who was hiding behind the precedent breaking ruling of Heller.

As for your founding father quote goes, I'll counter with something every founder signed on to and every state agreed to:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

I've also got some news for you; Democracy led by the barrel of a gun isn't democracy, its tyranny.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Lol

No, I'll wait till Democrats pack the court and make it so the federal government can take away your precious guns and I'll be laughing in your face while pointing out the hypocrisy of you accepting 150 years of precedent being thrown out by judges with an inconsistent ideology, only to complain when its undone under a similar manner.

All you've got is a recent ruling, you can't refute the language of the 2nd, you can't refute the rest of the constitution, and you can't refute previous case laws.

Enjoy your newly acquired right which you gun nutters will surely lose due to a self fulfilling prophecy.

That's the spirit! If you don't agree with what's established, exploit the system until you get what you want! You're learning well from the conservatives on this forum.

 

[ralfy]

2A involves three things: individual rights, the same rights to justify the formation of state militias, and mandatory military service to populate those militias and to serve the fed gov't. At some points, things like Art. 1 Sec. 8, the Militia Acts, the National Guard, conscription, increased complexity in mass, mechanized forces, and the Selective Service System made them possible or irrelevant.

Given that, 2A doesn't go against regulation, and vice versa.

 

[glenn1]

When people get old, does reading compensation get worse?

The 2nd is a states right. Period.

As to my other comment, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the other poster who was hiding behind the precedent breaking ruling of Heller.

As for your founding father quote goes, I'll counter with something every founder signed on to and every state agreed to:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

I've also got some news for you; Democracy led by the barrel of a gun isn't democracy, its tyranny.

I'm sure the next major gun restriction (beyond perhaps expanded background checks) will come any day now, just like the GOP will succeed in outlawing abortion at the federal level any day now.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Purely voluntary? No, it would not.

But as has already been said, a voluntary buyback program is a silly feel good thing that has a potential to backfire. Heck, if the gov was offering $500 for every gun turned in, I'd run to my nearest gun shop and buy a bunch of low-end .38 revolvers and sell them to the gov. Then take the proceeds and buy a nice Sig or an AR.

This was the headline I saw:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...il-war-with-gun-buyback-policy-070422203.html

I clicked it and it turns out he was talking about a mandatory assault weapon buyback policy. However, I would still like to know if a voluntary buyback program would violate the 2A.

 

[glenn1]

Purely voluntary? No, it would not.

But as has already been said, a voluntary buyback program is a silly feel good thing that has a potential to backfire. Heck, if the gov was offering $500 for every gun turned in, I'd run to my nearest gun shop and buy a bunch of low-end .38 revolvers and sell them to the gov. Then take the proceeds and buy a nice Sig or an AR.

ARs are boring once your job is to lug them around for months at a time and you've shot 10s of thousands of rounds through them (after busting knuckles loading them). If the state/city decided to buy back for above market rates I'd splurge for something like a Hammerli 208. The factory engraved ones aren't only world-class accurate, they're fvcking beautiful.

 

[mdram]

Q2: if not worded correctly, giving your child a firearm for thier first hunting trip would make you a felon.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Referring to the bold text. This is why countries in the past (Nazi Germany, Russia / USSR, China, etc.) have sought to disarm the populace. You're only proving what many 2A advocate fear would happen. The founders were smarter than you (not a stretch) and feared the same.

People like you are the reason why 2A proponents dig in their heels wrt discussion about ways to reform gun laws. So congrats on being part of the problem.

Let's have some real fun. Let's talk about sensible abortion reform.

When people get old, does reading compensation get worse?

The 2nd is a states right. Period.

As to my other comment, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the other poster who was hiding behind the precedent breaking ruling of Heller.

As for your founding father quote goes, I'll counter with something every founder signed on to and every state agreed to:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

I've also got some news for you; Democracy led by the barrel of a gun isn't democracy, its tyranny.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think a big part of it is that pro-2A'ers are sick of watching do-nothing restrictions that only affect them go into effect. The 2A has been whittled away enough already.

I think it says a lot about preserving individual rights that we're in a country where you can have one of these:

The 2A is not for hunting.

 

[Viper1j]

Take a moment to remember the heroes.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Take a moment to remember the heroes.

View attachment 10547

Same for free speech (bullying). Same for alcohol. Same for having automobiles. Same for using electricity. Same for legal hammers and screwdrivers. Same for legal widespread tobacco use. Same for knives (actually knives kill far more people each year than all rifles - including scary AR15s and shotguns combined). Same for poisonous substances easily available. Same for just about any right... because just about anything, when used with evil intent or irresponsibly, can cause harm. The question is whether that right is worthwhile enough to keep a right or ban. Seeing as anti-2A'ers don't care about about further limiting much bigger killers like tobacco, then we must agree the right to bear arms is still well within the "worthwhile" threshold. And wait until we figure into the equation all of the lives saved by guns.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What is clear is that guns contribute to gun violence. What would be refreshing is if the 2A absolutists would have the balls to say we don't want reasonable regulations on firearms and we accept gun violence and gun deaths as acceptable collateral damage for our freedoms. But they don't have the stones. You think all those guns they fetishize about would give them some balls to admit shit but surprise, they hide behind them.

I accept gun violence and think that gun deaths (including suicides) are acceptable collateral damage to my freedoms.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Same for free speech (bullying). Same for alcohol. Same for having automobiles. Same for using electricity. Same for legal hammers and screwdrivers. Same for legal widespread tobacco use. Same for knives (actually knives kill far more people each year than all rifles - including scary AR15s and shotguns combined). Same for poisonous substances easily available. Same for just about any right... because just about anything, when used with evil intent or irresponsibly, can cause harm. The question is whether that right is worthwhile enough to keep a right or ban. Seeing as anti-2A'ers don't care about about further limiting much bigger killers like tobacco, then we must agree the right to bear arms is still well within the "worthwhile" threshold. And wait until we figure into the equation all of the lives saved by guns.

Here we go again.....lives saved by guns! So basically you are once again stating that the lives killed by tguns were meaningless to begin with.......
Your arguments are bull S... and you know it!! There is a lot of truth in what Viper posted !!

 

[JEDIYoda]

I accept gun violence and think that gun deaths (including suicides) are acceptable collateral damage to my freedoms.

of course you do!! Until a loved one of yours or a family member gets killed due to gun violence......

 

[Victorian Gray]

of course you do!! Until a loved one of yours or a family member gets killed due to gun violence......

Do socks have families?

 

[ivwshane]

Referring to the bold text. This is why countries in the past (Nazi Germany, Russia / USSR, China, etc.) have sought to disarm the populace. You're only proving what many 2A advocate fear would happen. The founders were smarter than you (not a stretch) and feared the same.

People like you are the reason why 2A proponents dig in their heels wrt discussion about ways to reform gun laws. So congrats on being part of the problem.

Let's have some real fun. Let's talk about sensible abortion reform.

Thanks for showing us how stupid gun nutters are.

Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers came up with the electoral college because they knew people like you were too stupid to understand what they are voting for.

They also knew how idiotic people can get when they get into groups which is why the constitution specifically lays out the duty of government to put down all insurrections and rebellions.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Thanks for showing us how stupid gun nutters are.

Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The founding fathers came up with the electoral college because they knew people like you were too stupid to understand what they are voting for.

They also knew how idiotic people can get when they get into groups which is why the constitution specifically lays out the duty of government to put down all insurrections and rebellions.

So are you saying that GUN NUTTERS are part of an insurrection and a rebellion?? If you are I would agree!!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Here we go again.....lives saved by guns! So basically you are once again stating that the lives killed by tguns were meaningless to begin with.......
Your arguments are bull S... and you know it!! There is a lot of truth in what Viper posted !!

Another thread here showed that CNN counted 115 kids killed in the last 10 years in school shootings. There were 56.6 million kids enrolled K-12 in 2018 alone. I don't want any single kid shot in school any more than you do. But let's stop pretending like this is a bigger problem than it is. That makes for very, very low odds of a child being shot in school. The mainstream news loves to make the spectacle though. They need clicks and there is an agenda to push.

 

[JEDIYoda]

another question how can a person with no military background be part of a WELL REGULATED militia.....
Oh I am a gun owner I have a right to won my gun@! Okay you have that right , now we need you to use that gun to defend the united states from a invasion and starting tomorrow morning bright and early at 5 am we are all meeting in the local park to start training you to be part of a well regulated militia!! No this does not pay you jack squatt! It is part of your agreement with the government as a gun owner to be part of a well regulated militia...…..

 

[glenn1]

another question how can a person with no military background be part of a WELL REGULATED militia.....
Oh I am a gun owner I have a right to won my gun@! Okay you have that right , now we need you to use that gun to defend the united states from a invasion and starting tomorrow morning bright and early at 5 am we are all meeting in the local park to start training you to be part of a well regulated militia!! No this does not pay you jack squatt! It is part of your agreement with the government as a gun owner to be part of a well regulated militia...…..

The first step in creating a well regulated militia is excluding dumbasses like you from the militia.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

of course you do!! Until a loved one of yours or a family member gets killed due to gun violence......

I also accept that driving a car/truck has collateral damage and deaths associated with it and I find it acceptable. Do you drive? Still have a penis that's associated with rape? yeah, thought so.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I also accept that driving a car/truck has collateral damage and deaths associated with it and I find it acceptable. Do you drive? Still have a penis that's associated with rape? yeah, thought so.

Ah so Spidey was right for once!! You do have this thing about penises!!!

 

[SlowSpyder]

another question how can a person with no military background be part of a WELL REGULATED militia.....
Oh I am a gun owner I have a right to won my gun@! Okay you have that right , now we need you to use that gun to defend the united states from a invasion and starting tomorrow morning bright and early at 5 am we are all meeting in the local park to start training you to be part of a well regulated militia!! No this does not pay you jack squatt! It is part of your agreement with the government as a gun owner to be part of a well regulated militia...…..

How can you form a well regulated militia without weapons?