Lax gun laws prove deadly in the U.S.

[CDNBear]

I suppose when the US Supreme Court is stacked with anti-gun judges and interpret the 2nd amendment another way, there will be the triple E speech of lies trotted out again.

Given the fact that we recently saw a right leaning Justice, find that same sex marriage was legal in the 9th Circuit. I think it's safe to say that we can see appropriately ruled findings from Justices that adhere to the spirit of the Constitution.

I would like to see the gun nuts answer the questions on how to stop people from killing others with a gun.

Stringent licensing requirements. As I have said all along. And I'm not a gun nut. But I do like them.

If the US can prevent Iraq from getting nukes, not because they have done something, but because they may do something, then why can't the government of the US prevent an American from having a gun, not because they have done something, but because they may do something?

Because civil liberty lawyers have made it virtually impossible to have the appropriate access to a persons most confidential mental health and criminal info.

When assessing a persons legitimate right to posses a weapon, everything they've ever done, all the way back to the day they were born, should be available to the process.

 

[Colpy]

Oh, I must have missed where you answered my question and explained why they didnt just write "The right of the People to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed." instead of wasting ink and goose feathers on all those other words.



A militia that is proper working order is a world of different from every man and his dog carrying a gun.



It would take all the skills of a dedicated interpreter of the sacred texts to come to that conclusion.

The first phrase is included because the people that wrote the Constitution wanted it clearly understood the reason the people had the right

The reason is that the people are, as an informal militia, the defenders of their own freedom, against enemies from outside, or against enemies from Washington DC................and as such, they require access to their own weapons, and those weapons that they have a right to keep and bear are personal weapons of a military nature.

That means, under the US Code adopted at the time EVERY man with his gun.

I once discussed this with Dr. Tom Condon, a Harvard educated historian, president of the University of New Brunswick in Saint John, and as liberal an individual as ever existed.........and he admitted the Amendment meant (and I quote) "I, you, them, everybody has a right to assault rifles" Probably the reason he, and his even more liberal history Professor wife fled the USA for Canada.....

He advocated the removal of the Second Amendment, although he knew that was impossible "in the foreseeable future"

 

[Unforgiven]

Given the fact that we recently saw a right leaning Justice, find that same sex marriage was legal in the 9th Circuit. I think it's safe to say that we can see appropriately ruled findings from Justices that adhere to the spirit of the Constitution.

Not that there aren't any, but more and more the court is being "stacked" by political leanings.

Stringent licensing requirements. As I have said all along. And I'm not a gun nut. But I do like them.
Because civil liberty lawyers have made it virtually impossible to have the appropriate access to a persons most confidential mental health and criminal info.

regulation doesn't when those who are supposed to abide the laws choose not to. With lax enforcement there ultimately becomes no law. Look at the laws regarding Cannabis in Canada. It only serves as a sloppy version of make work for some and an excuse for a tax that is other wise nothing but a burden on the public.

When assessing a persons legitimate right to posses a weapon, everything they've ever done, all the way back to the day they were born, should be available to the process.

They can't even manage to get a clear picture of who has guns and who doesn't in this country. How in the world can any government, let alone one that dumped the census, going to build a data base like that?

Only when an incident like the Kellowna RCMP kicking the unarmed cooperative man in the face, results in many members of the public drawing weapons and killing the cop right there and probably starting a huge standoff with the police, will gun nuts start to agree that perhaps there might be an indication that there is maybe a problem.

The first phrase is included because the people that wrote the Constitution wanted it clearly understood the reason the people had the right

The reason is that the people are, as an informal militia, the defenders of their own freedom, against enemies from outside, or against enemies from Washington DC................and as such, they require access to their own weapons, and those weapons that they have a right to keep and bear are personal weapons of a military nature.

That means, under the US Code adopted at the time EVERY man with his gun.

I once discussed this with Dr. Tom Condon, a Harvard educated historian, president of the University of New Brunswick in Saint John, and as liberal an individual as ever existed.........and he admitted the Amendment meant (and I quote) "I, you, them, everybody has a right to assault rifles" Probably the reason he, and his even more liberal history Professor wife fled the USA for Canada.....

He advocated the removal of the Second Amendment, although he knew that was impossible "in the foreseeable future"

Since when does informal militia mean well regulated militia?

Also, defence against enemies from Washington is actually saying to shoot at police or other extension of authority
which is usually frowned upon by the public. For that matter, why isn't the guy who killed those six people in Arizona under arrest if he was defending against "enemies from washington" as you say?

 

[Machjo]

I suppose when the US Supreme Court is stacked with anti-gun judges and interpret the 2nd amendment another way, there will be the triple E speech of lies trotted out again.

I would like to see the gun nuts answer the questions on how to stop people from killing others with a gun.

If the US can prevent Iraq from getting nukes, not because they have done something, but because they may do something, then why can't the government of the US prevent an American from having a gun, not because they have done something, but because they may do something?

The right to bear arms is exclusive to the US. How dare any other country do so.

 

[Colpy]

I suppose when the US Supreme Court is stacked with anti-gun judges and interpret the 2nd amendment another way, there will be the triple E speech of lies trotted out again.

I would like to see the gun nuts answer the questions on how to stop people from killing others with a gun.

If the US can prevent Iraq from getting nukes, not because they have done something, but because they may do something, then why can't the government of the US prevent an American from having a gun, not because they have done something, but because they may do something?

First of all, the recent Supreme Court decision was the first time the question of individual gun rights was ruled upon, it is therefore a "landmark" decision, and should be considered by the justices as pretty well enshrined.

Secondly, the right is ancient, was recognized long before the Second Amendment, and does not rely upon that document for its existence.

Here's an answer from a gun nut.........You can't stop people killing each other with guns.....or anything else. You can't be safe. Never-ending attempts to make society "safe" from threat after threat after threat, far beyond just guns, acheive nothing but the continual shrinkage of our freedom.

Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty????? Interesting concept, which is applicable to individuals......and not to nations.

The right to bear arms is exclusive to the US. How dare any other country do so.

The right to bear arms is universal, and enshrined in the constitutional precedents in countries that follow the traditions of English common law............

 

[Akubra]

The first phrase is included because the people that wrote the Constitution wanted it clearly understood the reason the people had the right

The reason is that the people are, as an informal militia, the defenders of their own freedom, against enemies from outside, or against enemies from Washington DC................and as such, they require access to their own weapons, and those weapons that they have a right to keep and bear are personal weapons of a military nature.

Now you have changed your tune and are telling me that the first part of the 2nd Amendment is important and that it explains the reason why people should be armed, that is because a well regulated militia is essential for the security of the state. That is way different from everyone carrying a gun openly as defence against criminals and assault. BTW, it was not an "informal militia" being proposed, it was a "well regulated" one and thank you for pointing out what is meant by "well regulated".

 

[Colpy]

Now you have changed your tune and are telling me that the first part of the 2nd Amendment is important and that it explains the reason why people should be armed, that is because a well regulated militia is essential for the security of the state. That is way different from everyone carrying a gun openly as defence against criminals and assault. BTW, it was not an "informal militia" being proposed, it was a "well regulated" one and thank you for pointing out what is meant by "well regulated".

My my, you REALLY should get on with that course in reading comprehension.....I never once said the first phrase was unimportant, I simply said it did not in any way modify the second phrase.......full stop.

And "well-regulated" means "working well".....which means trained and used to the use and carrying of arms.......thus the requirement for private ownership.

And YES the section mentions the militia.....which consists of EVERY male between 17 and 45.

And it is FREE state, the word you leep leaving out...(no surprise there)

And it all does not in any way modify "The right of the PEOPLE (not the state) to keep AND BEAR (that means carry) arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.

You just don't get it....I get the feeling you are being purposely obtuse.

I feel like I am explaining nuclear physics to my cocker spaniel.

 

[ironsides]

The right to bear arms is exclusive to the US. How dare any other country do so.

You are exactly right, what other country allows it. Any other country wants to allow it, do it, pass laws to do so if you trust your citizens as we do ours. (nuclear stuff not included)

 

[Unforgiven]

Here's an answer from a gun nut.........You can't stop people killing each other with guns.....or anything else.

Obviously, but we don't have to make it so damned easy do we?

 

[Akubra]

My my, you REALLY should get on with that course in reading comprehension.....

Such personal comments indicate you are becoming frustrated in your argument.

I never once said the first phrase was unimportant, I simply said it did not in any way modify the second phrase.......full stop.

Which is another way of saying the first phrase is unimportant to the meaning of the last phrase.

And "well-regulated" means "working well".....which means trained and used to the use and carrying of arms.......thus the requirement for private ownership.

A militia is a military force which is more than a bunch of guys carrying guns in their pickups. A military force, for it to "work well" must have systems of discipline and command which are totally lacking from the Utopia dreamed of by gun nuttters.

And it is FREE state, the word you leep leaving out...(no surprise there)

Free or not, the 2nd Amendment is still about secuirty of the state.

And it all does not in any way modify "The right of the PEOPLE (not the state) to keep AND BEAR (that means carry) arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.

It does does however put the writers' intentions into context which you carefully avoid.

You just don't get it....I get the feeling you are being purposely obtuse.

Thats the problem with prosthelytizing, some folks just plain refuse to believe the Earth floats on the back of a giant turtle.

I feel like I am explaining nuclear physics to my cocker spaniel.

I dont know how smart your cocker spaniel is, maybe smarter than you think. For example would he understand "Pee in the corner again, I will kick your arse"? Is he smart enough to know not to pee in the corner or will he be expecting a kick up his arse?

You are exactly right, what other country allows it. Any other country wants to allow it, do it, pass laws to do so if you trust your citizens as we do ours. (nuclear stuff not included)

I can think of very few countries where ownership of firearms is absolutely prohibited though most recognise the safety issues and require a system or licencing, registration and (hopefully) training.

Incidently, anyone who thinks uncrontrolled free availability of firearms to everyone who can afford them ensures peace and harmony in society should go and live in such a country. I can recommend Somalia and Afghanistan, Pakistan too.

 

[Colpy]

Free or not, the 2nd Amendment is still about secuirty of the state

.

This is simply stupid.

The Bill of Rights does NOT exist to further the aims of the State.

Instead, the Bill of Rights is a series of LIMITATIONS on state power.

That is what a Bill of Rights IS!!!!

The fact that that simple concept is beyond you completely reveals the absolute lack of understanding you have brought to the debate.

Yes, I get frustrated.......you can't grasp the simplest concepts.

It is one of the reasons I no longer teach high school history....I have little tolerance for fools.
It is an unfortunate character flaw, one that I try to overcome......but I get tired banging my head against a stone wall.

Go get a bloody education, then come back and talk to me.

 

[DaSleeper]

Colpy: you must be a good firearms instructor....you have patience.....
but maybe too much with fools?

 

[Unforgiven]

Cheerleading uniforms as low as $43.98

 

[Akubra]

Colpy, this is how it started:-
I wrote "It is difficult to see how the words of the US's 2nd Amendment guarantees the 'right' for everyone to carry a gun wherever they like. "

... and you responded :-
"And exactly what part of the declarative phrase ".....the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." do you not understand?" .... which rightly or wrongly I took as an insult against on my intelligence.

Since then you have been unable to tell me why the writers included the bit about the security of the state if their real intention had been merely to confirm existing rights.

You failed to address my statements that every man and his dog having a gun does not a "well regulated' militia make.

I can understand why you gave up teaching as you are not really very good at it. Instead of clearly stating the facts, as you see them, you begin by insulting your "student" and things go down hill from there.

Apparently, at least in your mind, anyone who does not see things your way must be uneducated or otherwise handicapped.

DaSleeper wrote

Colpy: you must be a good firearms instructor....you have patience.....
but maybe too much with fools?

Thank you for your kind words sonny.

 

[DaSleeper]

Thank you for your kind words sonny.

 

[Colpy]

Since then you have been unable to tell me why the writers included the bit about the security of the state if their real intention had been merely to confirm existing rights.

Okay, I apologize for starting to lose it. You are quite correct, I should avoid insult.

So......one more time.......it says, 'the security of a FREE state".

The word you consistently leave out is the most important word in the phrase....it is NOT the security of the state, but the security of a FREE state........in other words, private ownership of military-type firearms is guaranteed because it is necessary that the militia (all the people) be armed to keep the state free....as Mao Tse Tung said "An armed people can never be oppressed"

That said........the phrase does not at all modify the second part..........which guarantees the right of the PEOPLE (everyone) to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms...............

 

[Skatchie]

This murder was committed by a wing nut crazy schizo. That being said, he was a left wing nut, not a right wing nut and he was against the second amendment and used the murder as a way to show his disapproval with the gun rights. His arguments, that they tell us he has had with Giffords, were all 100% due to her not being liberal enough for him. She was very pro second amendment and very opposed to the open borders. That's why he shot her, along with being a completely insane idiot. It is so sickening to hear that a liberal gun hater uses a gun and now people think that means we need to get rid of guns for everyone else. If I intentionally ran you over with a Jeep, are we going to ban those as well?

 

[Akubra]

Okay, I apologize for starting to lose it. You are quite correct, I should avoid insult.

Accepted, thank you.

So......one more time.......it says, 'the security of a FREE state".
The word you consistently leave out is the most important word in the phrase....it is NOT the security of the state, but the security of a FREE state........in other words, private ownership of military-type firearms is guaranteed because it is necessary that the militia (all the people) be armed to keep the state free.

Free from what? Free from foreign oppressors? Free from an oppressive government? Neither of these is what modern gun owners want which is to carry their guns always as a form of un-coordinated self policing society which has never been mentioned.

...as Mao Tse Tung said "An armed people can never be oppressed"

Did the Chairman really say that? I can not find that quote in a quick Google search.

That said........the phrase does not at all modify the second part..........which guarantees the right of the PEOPLE (everyone) to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms.............

Now you are trying to confuse me, I thought the phrase did not guarantee anything but merely stated that an existing right would not be "infringed".

 

[ironsides]

If the need ever arose, we could field a armed volunteer militia army in the field in a matter of days or sooner. What everyone keeps going over lightly is that every person who owns a weapon with few exceptions has some knowledge as to how to use it. (thus are trained) Now this militia would not be a match for a formal army, but can cause them havoc, There will be so many that they will eventually overwhelm their enemy. Do not kid yourselves, we have a well armed and regulated militia, maybe it has been 250 years or so since it was last fully used, but they still live in millions of Americans.


I am not advocating free uncontrolled availability of firearms, in all cases I think everyone should have their records checked for criminal activity as well as any mental problems.

 

[Cliffy]

If the need ever arose, we could field a armed volunteer militia army in the field in a matter of days or sooner. What everyone keeps going over lightly is that every person who owns a weapon with few exceptions has some knowledge as to how to use it. (thus are trained) Now this militia would not be a match for a formal army, but can cause them havoc, There will be so many that they will eventually overwhelm their enemy. Do not kid yourselves, we have a well armed and regulated militia, maybe it has been 250 years or so since it was last fully used, but they still live in millions of Americans.


I am not advocating free uncontrolled availability of firearms, in all cases I think everyone should have their records checked for criminal activity as well as any mental problems.

Everybody has mental problems of varying degrees. Who decides who is more mental than the next guy? I doubt it can be said that our politicians are the best and brightest among us, so if they are the ones making decisions, we are all FUBARED. Perhaps some day in the far distant future we will have law makers who have integrity. Until then we should have a well armed population to protect us from them.