The second amendment whats it mean to you

Prove it. Go on. Prove it.

 

ok. Los Angeles has about 10 million people, only a few hundred CCWs were issued. (Do the math) Open carry is illegal. If a non-criminal takes their gun outside their front door, they immediately become a criminal.

So with an infinitesimal amount of exceptions, only cops, judges, and criminals carry guns here in Los Angeles.

https://signalscv.com/2021/05/lasd-...rmits-task-force-looks-to-streamline-process/

 

No. You're making straw man fallacies now

Show me.

 

Why? You can't read the 2A?

 

Show me where it says you have the right to own a claymore?

 

Why, have you read the 2A?

 

So you did. Thank you.

 

Good idea. Let the police and the crims sort it out.

 

Not that debunked Philip Van Cleave BS again?

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...st-murders-gangbangers-killing-gangbangers-v/

 

Oh PolitiFact.... That's always very convincing if you have a left-wing claim to make.

 

Yes we know you think only the police and criminal should carry weapons

 

Why is this good in your opinion?

 

Because the last thing the police needs is interference in evidence and a confusing of what happened.

Let me put it like this.
The second amendment MAY gave allowed you to have a gun.
What it doesn't say is that you have a right to carry out a death sentence on thieves, which is in conflict with a proper judicial pronouncement.
IOW if you kill a burglar etc you are overflying stated law and pronouncing your own.
That cannot be allowed to happen. That is anarchy.

 

Rules, to be widely respected, must be clear, simple, straight-forward. The founders understood this. Thus the entire US Constitution is only about 4500 words.

First- The more detailed and elaborate rules are made- the more loopholes and conflict they produce, the less effective they will be at providing the result intended. One of the first "rules" to recognize this is well known- "Thou shalt not kill". Not vague, not arbitrary- absolutely everyone can understand what it says. Now I'm not pushing religion here, just noting that simple rules are easy to understand, complex ones are easy to question, to evade and distort.

The second point is enforcement. IF good rules are not enforced, or are not respected and we allow them to be distorted, evaded and re-interpreted- then we have no rules at all, only window dressing, recitals to tell ourselves we are honorable people with values. The problem is not the rules, it's the failure to respect and enforce those rules.

The second amendment is not in any way ambiguous or arbitrary. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What is infringement? ANY restriction, limitation, taxation, imposition of any kind. The Amendment says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If you look up the definitions of shall/shall not, you see it totally prohibits the objective action- or infringement.

The statement "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" acknowledges that the entire population of the nation is the militia that may be called on to preserve the state, for everyone. The "well regulated: makes it clear that a formed militia in that purpose will be regulated. To do that- the people must have arms and ammunition. They are the ultimate defense that backs up the army in defending the union.

In the civil war, the north was initially strongly out-numbered. President Lincoln called the people to form militias, with 75,000 men- and by so doing, doubled the size of the north's defensive armies almost overnight. Precisely the purpose that phrase and the2nd amendment was meant to serve.

We HAVE allowed the 2nd commandment to be infringed. Like with most things- tolerance or exceptions will tend to grow into control powers. We make all buyers of guns clear a background check, and tht leaves a record of the possession of firearms. That IS an infringement; accepted with the understanding of purpose being to prevent felons and dangerous people from obtaining guns in the first place.
We also restrict the types of weapons citizens can own, something not given in the amendment, even though cannons existed at the time it was written.
Today, a citizen can own a fully automatic weapon, or a cannon- but it requires a lengthy application and a $200 tax. That is another infringement, we have allowed.

We have also infringed upon the components and accessories now, things not in existence when the amendment was written. Magazine sizes, lengths of each kind of firearm, even suppressors. Let's look at that one.

The popular term "Silencer" is a bad description. Unlike what is shown in movies, "silencers" are not at all silent. The right term is Suppressors, in that they reduce the volume. How much?
A typical center fire rifle has a sound level around 140 decibels. Hearing is damaged at around 100 decibels. A really good suppressor might reduce the sound by 30-35 decibels, leaving the sound about the same as a chain saw. Even at 80-85 decibels, sustained exposure causes hearing loss. So it makes ultimate sense for the shooter and people within earshot to use suppressors. Many countries allow them, some places require them. We require registration and $200 to own a suppressor- and there are strict documentation requirements. A bill introduced a couple years ago to remove suppressors from that category of control never got out of committee. Facts simply did not matter- the public perception of the movie silencer being silent intimidated the politicians.

The primary objective of the anti-gun community is to eliminate guns. Lesser claims are an attempt to get the foot in the door, and then- in the house.
The constitution of the United States is widely recognized as the best such document ever written- and it will work for all, SO LONG AS WE HONOR IT.

 

The "right", not the arms.

 

@Polydectes
If you haven't read the 2A, here's a synopsis.

 

What?

 

I appreciate your explanation. While you and I are having this discussion from the luxury of our computer, police see crime scenes on a regular basis and overwhelmingly support armed citizens.

In fact, CCW holders are not shooting thieves.

FYI, it is not possible to shoot a burglar. Burglary is when no one is home. If you are home to shoot them, its is a home invasion robbery. What would you do if someone was in your hallway heading for your childs room?

 

the 2A may not allow me to shoot an intruder who mean me harm. But the Castle Doctrine does indeed allow this.

 

I'm wondering if anybody told the Vietnamese or the Taliban that, because we vastly out-gunned them at every turn and still had to run....
Guess they just didn't know they didn't have a chance against us.

 

The "crime" can only be
the unlawful discharge.
the 2nd

I choose NOT to own a gun.
But, I co-own 2 rural properties where opinions
are quite different from urban, PC.

No License
No Permit
No Registration
The crime is the unlawful discharge.
Jail Time required, esp,: if injury to another
like VP Cheney shooting his friend in the face.
You hold it, you are responsible
Responsibility establishes there are NO Accidents.


Moi

Remember Isla Vista!​

 

There's no "may" here as there is absolutely nothing in the 2nd that could be read to prohibit it.

Self-defense isn't a death sentence, and has nothing to do with the justice system.

In every part of the US, in all of the states and territories, it is perfectly legal to kill someone in self-defense.
So... No.

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

I don't recall where it said you can own claymore's since that's the hill you pick to die on you need to make an argument for it

 

None of it answers to my question.

This is the hill you picked to die on you are dying on it.

 

If you don't know the 2A, that can be the hill you die on. You're already dead.

If you would have read the post I shared with you, you would get your answer.