Can we have an honest, respectful discussion about guns in America?

And a relative might very well give an unstable relative a gun when he knows they can't pass a background check.

It's no real imposition to submit to a background check...unless you can't pass it

 

Not in evidence? Yes I am indeed talking about things you claim are there but are not. I'm glad you agree.

Yes, would. Militias are not standing. They are called out. States have the ability to do this, and the feds can as well. The rules trigger for membership limitations, preparedness, and on drill or while called out. Absent that you are a private citizen. With all rights firmly attached.

As explained, ad nausem, the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This is supported by the plain text, the intent of the founders as evidenced in their writings on the subject, common sense, and established legal precedent from the highest court in the land.
The term " the people " as it applies to rights, is used several other times. Can you tell the class where those instances are?

"A well regulated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed. "

Who may keep and bear books, just the electorate or the people individually? What sort of books may they own and carry? What are the limitations allowed to this right?

 

He actually said it!!!!

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear eh Leshy?

 

I'll concede the background check. Noted you are conceding the 10 day, Chicago, and locking up the thugs.

 

Yeah, you're not gonna move the goalposts. Sorry.

 

So how did you come to focus on Feinstein (and mistake her for Pelosi). You can be honest. You're among friends...

 

I often see various elements doing their best to re-interpret the 2nd amendment, sometimes based on a presumption of what the founders meant rather than what they said. However anyone who had read the writings of these men in detail knows that they were extremely deliberate, giving a lot of thought to their every word, and took great care to express exactly what they meant.

The first phrase of the amendment points out importance- the second one states the rule. "Shall not be infringed" is a very explicit term; it simply doesn't leave any room for compromise.

The militias were the people at large- the population that could be called in time of great need. When the civil war began, the government called for 75,000 such men to come forward and form militias, and they were expected to provide their own arms and ammunition. If today a critical situation required it, that militia would still be available because of the 2nd amendment. .

 

I already told you they are interchangeable so it's an easy mistake to make. They're both busybody schoolmarms who drink the same kool-aid. Peas in a pod are they! But you tried to move the goalposts. Don't think I didn't notice.

 

Defending the second amendment based on governmental tyranny is rather foolish in this age. The force of the state will easily subdue any rebellion it faces, unless the individual is endowed the right to possess weapons of mass destruction. This seems unreasonable.

Using comparisons from colonial times is entirely unrelatable. We aren't dealing with slave uprisings or a territorial war with native Americans, and we also don't hunt for the majority of our food.

I am for the second amendment, but I'm also open to basic regulation of firearms. There is more credence to saying you support firearms for the sake of a simple freedom than to defend the chance of a rebellion against the state.

 

I understand you have been conditioned to think of all liberals as one in the same but that conditioning came from somewhere.

Care to enlighten us?

 

Please take note that superior military might is not the sum of the question- If it were, we would not have been kicked out of Vietnam by a country with no air force, navy, or significant armored forces. Iran would have not fallen back, and Afghanistan would be a historic conflict. Take that to a domestic conflict, and mass rejection or desertion becomes a factor.
Then you have vastly more arms in private hands that military, and a very large number of people who use them well. Not cut and dried like an open field battle between uniformed regulars.

 

You're completely wrong about Vietnam and Afghanistan

They had robust artillery and rockets and a huge supply network in the South and had an air force that for a time had a 1 to 1 kill ratio as well as sophisticated air defenses.

The Mujaheddin was getting their butts kicked by the Russians until We gave them Stingers.

Yahoos with AR-15s isn't exactly on that level.

 

We're still in Afganistan, and we successfully quelled the rise of communism in Vietnam which was a major goal. Iran has been a target for ages since they nationalized their oil.

Nevertheless, ground war is outdated, our military is comprised of flying robots, and new land units won't be surprising.

I guess I fail to see things as you do. A gun will not protect you from tyranny in an age where your privacy is the ultimate liberty.

 

The first phrase is the reason for what follows...as is customary in our language .A Well Regulated Militia being necessary ...tells us why what follows is THERE.

 

2d Amendment was created to insure self protection against brigands, foreign invaders, government tyranny, and in some states, to protect against uprising by slaves seeking freedom. Thankfully, de jure slavery has ended though de facto is clearly in evident every day. Still, the Amendment has not proven to be effective in protecting people (blacks in particular) against government tyranny in the form of police crimes and brutalism.

As you know from reading my posts, I am a former member of the NRA and am fully in accord with the right to own and possess weapons. On that basis, I support the right of people to protect themselves from police crimes. Yet, for some reason, I can never get right wingers to agree that people should always have this right unimpeded by any force. That's because hypocritical forum right wingers are totally unprincipled.

 

''well regulated" defined:


http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm



As a literary scholar and one well versed in American history, I am in accord with the thesis presented in this writing.

 

Nothing in the Constitution says anything about protection from government tyranny. In fact it specifically states that the "Well Regulated Militia" had as one of it's duties...to put DOWN that kind of insurrection. And in fact that is how it was used in both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

 

The only description of both the duties of and the make up of a Well Regulated Militia in the Constitution
Article 1 Section 8

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

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

It clearly describes a well organized military organization with rank, discipline, and training

 

Please recall past studies/discussions of designated vs implied powers. Not all powers given to the government are expressly stated. This because our Founders knew alterations in law and even in the Constitution would be eventuated by the passing of time.

 

These were...They were very specific about this

 

The Supreme Court ruled in Caetano vs Massachusetts that weapons (even stun guns) were protected under the 2d Amendment as self defense.

 

Are you kidding?

In 1975, Vietnam was taken over by the communists. Following their takeover, the communists murdered and "re-educated" several 100,000 Vietnamese. The USA did not quell the rise of communism in SE Asia, the communists won.

The USA has not won in Afghanistan either. That's an ongoing issue, but its outcome is far from certain.

<>

"Bomber Harris" declared he could defeat Germany in WW2 through strategic bombing. He failed. Ground troops were required.

Donald Rumsfeld thought the USA could win in Iraq and Afghanistan through drones and air power, with minimal ground troops. He was wrong.

People who think wars are all push button affairs, fought with robots and drones, live in fantasy land. Too much tv. We are nowhere close to the "push button war".

 

You're right about Vietnam, the government went under socialist rule and didn't integrate until 1986.

Are you trying to claim the state cannot dominate you because of your firearm?

Comparisons to foreign jungles don't relate to the suberbs most live in. There may be some areas of advantage, but it would be useless under surveillance.

If we're to debate such a theoretical conflict we need to understand how territory is broken down and the rules of engagement. As a proud swamp yankee, my father and I could take out a number of infidels in our region, but it doesn't matter if they carpet bomb us.

 

Care to enlighten me? How have you come by this fallacious understanding? There is a vast difference between, for example, the late Paul Wellstone - a thoughtful, deliberative, objective unapologetic liberal whom I had great respect for and whom was called the "Conscience of The Senate," and a loudmouth cackling race hustler like Maxine Waters.