Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

I'm pretty clear on what by brain hears, and it doesn't hear what you suggest --- so, no, it doesn't.
And even if your claim that "It's in every thread on American forum" is true, it doesn't change the fact by brain does not hear what you suggest.
As far as your "regulations" go, I can enjoy my right to keep and bear arms - including my right to carry a gun in public - without any of them; your opinion carriers no authority whatsoever.
So, please: Repeat your strawman if you wish - he's still made of straw.

 

Whatever you excuse is for avoiding responses you don't like -- it's still an excuse.

 

The right to bear arms is not the debate, you need that to avoid the debate.

You hear, "Gun ban", your brain CANNOT process, "Gun Regulation".

 

I go out to work, get in on an evening and I get double digit mouth frothing alerts. And you expect me to suddenly be in tune with the thread replies? You are gonna be f****** disappointed.

 

When you try to tell me what I can and can't do with my guns, then the right to keep and bear arms is very much the debate
And your claims as to what my brain can and cannot process have no basis in fact.
You have nothing but straw, man.

 

Excuses, excuses.

 

how many constitutional scholars, judges etc will agree with you that the second amendment covers weapons of mass destruction that are too indiscriminate to be used for self defense in a civilian environment.

 

and gun banners or restrictionists lie about what their real motivation is

 

A cannon is not a weapon of mass destruction ffs. Neither is a laws rocket or even a mortar.

Golem, stop playing around on Turtledude's account. That's not very funny.

 

I love purists but tell me-do you think there is ever going to be a court or legislature that says private citizens can own the following items without extremely restrictive controls
1) explosive shells-be it grenades or artillery shells

2) claymore mines

3) surface to air missiles or anti tank missiles such as LAWS MAWS,TOWsetc

what do you think was that natural right underlying the second amendment


I do not believe that term arms citizens keep and bear applied to indiscriminate devices such as missiles, rockets, grenades or bombs. You do. You will need convince me you are right

 

Typical anti-gun rights "froth".

In fact, every kind of "gun regulation" has been discussed at length on countless threads on this forum, and every kind of "gun regulation" has been tried in governments across the globe. Many members on this forum, across the spectrum, have expressed support for some kinds of "gun regulation".

You must have noticed.

 

~ Do the numbers ' 1776 ' mean anything to you .. ?
If not it's back to law school ...

 

I'm not being a purist. I'm being an originalist. The text says what it ****ing says. If you don't like what it ****ing says YOU no more get to handwave **** in than GOLEM does.

Honestly? Yes, I do. All you ****ing boomers will need to die of old age though.

What do I think was the natural right? To keep and bear arms. Arms meaning weapons. Technology improves, the right stays the same. That means capabilities improve. If that's such an issue SEE ART V there are two whole methods to use to fix it. Go nuts.

I don't need to convince you of a *******ned thing dude. That's what you fail to grasp. Ordnance is YOUR claim. YOU must therefore back up the distinction.
Exactly as the DOJ would have to do if Kavanaugh or Roberts could be bothered to be given their balls for ten minutes from whoever it is that owns them.

 

'Arms' is technically everything up to and including nukes. And thus, technically the 2A covers nukes and everything else. But its worth considering that IF we held a constitutional convention to alter the 2A to come up with a 'reasonable' (read: popular) 'middle' road between everyone having the right to bear nuclear arms and no one having the right to bear any arms at all, its safe to say that nukes, heavy artillery, SAMs and biological agents would easily gain the supermajority support they need to be banned, while things like semi-auto rifles and concealable pistols would not. So even though our current regulations have been done unconstitutionally and are therefore technically unlawful, our current regulations are ALSO pretty close to what we would get if we had done it legitimately and constitutionally.

...if we start banning semi-autos and pistols, that will no longer be the case, and people are going to have a lot less tolerance for this rule by bureaucratic fiat and decree. And that might not be the worst thing to happen in the long run, though it certainly won't be rainbows and unicorns either.

 

The 2nd would not allow for such regulations. We have a right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. (Unless you think the founders put that in as a joke)

fortunately we have that right enshrined into a constitution. It’s above the law because all law must abide by the rules set in the constitution. You can’t vote it away with a simple majority either. It is a right that I and many more will not let get thrown to the wayside. Until the constitutional amendment process gets rid of that right we will always regard it as it reads.

 

It's not that I don't like it. It's false. It's made up.
So for those reasons, no one likes it.

I don't know why you're arguing this. I've stated explicitly that the 2A explicitly says,
...
Second Amendment



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.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

...
No it changes nothing about whether you can bear arms. 2A says all arms shall not be infringed.
But that does NOT make you, a singular person, a militia.
What are you even arguing?

I am only stating YOU, YOURSELF, is NOT a militia.
Doesn't change anything per 2A, about you owing rocket launcher, grenade launchers, or automatic weapons.
But, there are infringements to owing all of them.
I think you even agree with some infringements.

 

No. I am giving my opinion on the exact word of the 2A.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
Second Amendment



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.

 

Per 2A, regulation is infringement.

 

Doesn't matter what you tell me.
What matters is the definition.

 

That's a definition.

 

If it doesn't change anything, then it doesn't mean anything. Put me in any group you must. If it doesn't effect me, IDC. Either way, I am 'the militia' according to US Code. As for others, until someone starts enforcing it, that's up to them.

I would support restrictions on some things, if it were put to a constitutional vote. I don't support regulating ('infringing') via dictatorial bureaucratic fiat simply because regulating democratically and constitutionally could get messy. Its sposed to be messy. Its sposed to be HARD for the govt to gain authority.

 

This is the only definition of 'militia' that matters in the US.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

I am not putting you into any group. In fact, I've been telling you, that you, are not a militia. A militia is a group.
Is that too hard to grasp?

2A explicitly says, 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"!!!

 

So where do you see the word individual?

 

I don't have much use for people who claim to be pro gun advocates and want to nit pick stuff they know is right. The fact is, the founders were big believers in natural law.