One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
NRA is against the constitution and second amendment
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
Mar 17, 2018 08:39:40   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
Kevyn wrote:
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Republican appointee, explained why the text of the Second Amendment affirms the importance of gun regulation. The first words of the amendment, Burger pointed out, are “a well regulated Militia.” This language presupposes the idea that the militias should be regulated. So, Burger reasoned, if the amendment rests on the assumption that well-trained state armies could be regulated, then it is sensible to think it also allows Congress to regulate guns among the general citizenry.

The constitutional argument for gun regulation also goes beyond the Second Amendment. The Constitution’s preamble speaks of the need to “insure domestic Tranquility”—a fundamental task of any government that can be aided by regulating deadly weapons. The recent tragedy in Florida—merely the newest in a line of one numbing bloodbath after another, a crisis that no other developed country on earth suffers from—has made it clear that our schools, hospitals, and military are anything but tranquil. In places where they once would have thought themselves safe, citizens fear another attack.

This is not only unacceptable, but it also demonstrates how far our country has strayed from a central constitutional principle. The preamble’s call for “domestic Tranquility” and the Second Amendment’s embrace of regulation do not merely allow Congress to act to regulate guns; they impel Congress to do so.

What about the worry that some forms of regulation still violate the second amendment? As Burger said in 1991, the idea that the second amendment prohibits gun regulation is “one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word fraud – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” And Burger’s view of the amendment squares with what the supreme court has said more recently
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Rep... (show quote)


One man's opinion.

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 09:44:58   #
Gatsby
 
Much like Burger, you have clearly never read the majority opinion in the District of Columbia v. Heller.

Burger has an excuse, do you!

Kevyn wrote:
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Republican appointee, explained why the text of the Second Amendment affirms the importance of gun regulation. The first words of the amendment, Burger pointed out, are “a well regulated Militia.” This language presupposes the idea that the militias should be regulated. So, Burger reasoned, if the amendment rests on the assumption that well-trained state armies could be regulated, then it is sensible to think it also allows Congress to regulate guns among the general citizenry.

The constitutional argument for gun regulation also goes beyond the Second Amendment. The Constitution’s preamble speaks of the need to “insure domestic Tranquility”—a fundamental task of any government that can be aided by regulating deadly weapons. The recent tragedy in Florida—merely the newest in a line of one numbing bloodbath after another, a crisis that no other developed country on earth suffers from—has made it clear that our schools, hospitals, and military are anything but tranquil. In places where they once would have thought themselves safe, citizens fear another attack.

This is not only unacceptable, but it also demonstrates how far our country has strayed from a central constitutional principle. The preamble’s call for “domestic Tranquility” and the Second Amendment’s embrace of regulation do not merely allow Congress to act to regulate guns; they impel Congress to do so.

What about the worry that some forms of regulation still violate the second amendment? As Burger said in 1991, the idea that the second amendment prohibits gun regulation is “one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word fraud – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” And Burger’s view of the amendment squares with what the supreme court has said more recently
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Rep... (show quote)

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 10:13:02   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
Snoopy wrote:
Kevin:

Correction: Federalist Paper 46. It is a good read for you.

Snoopy
Kevin's a troll.

He knows that a quick display of hatred for American's liberty will be good click-bait.

Reply
 
 
Mar 17, 2018 12:10:52   #
Kevyn
 
Super Dave wrote:
Kevin's a troll.

He knows that a quick display of hatred for American's liberty will be good click-bait.

Everyone here should note I posted a detailed article about a portion of our constitution and bill of rights that was the opinion of a well respected conservative Supreme Court Justice. In response semiman posted a ridiculous bald faced lie about South Africa that had nothing to do with my post. Everyone else blinded by ignorance choose to attack the thoughtful article I posted and were strangely oblivious to semimans outrageous lie.

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 12:40:47   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
Kevyn wrote:
Everyone here should note I posted a detailed article about a portion of our constitution and bill of rights that was the opinion of a well respected conservative Supreme Court Justice. In response semiman posted a ridiculous bald faced lie about South Africa that had nothing to do with my post. Everyone else blinded by ignorance choose to attack the thoughtful article I posted and were strangely oblivious to semimans outrageous lie.


Like I said, one man's opinion.

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 12:43:47   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
crazylibertarian wrote:
As a physician, I am far more qualified than you to diagnose fecal vomiting and it far more applies to what you post than Heniman or just about anyone on OPP.



Reply
Mar 17, 2018 12:44:58   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Kevyn wrote:
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Republican appointee, explained why the text of the Second Amendment affirms the importance of gun regulation. The first words of the amendment, Burger pointed out, are “a well regulated Militia.” This language presupposes the idea that the militias should be regulated. So, Burger reasoned, if the amendment rests on the assumption that well-trained state armies could be regulated, then it is sensible to think it also allows Congress to regulate guns among the general citizenry.

The constitutional argument for gun regulation also goes beyond the Second Amendment. The Constitution’s preamble speaks of the need to “insure domestic Tranquility”—a fundamental task of any government that can be aided by regulating deadly weapons. The recent tragedy in Florida—merely the newest in a line of one numbing bloodbath after another, a crisis that no other developed country on earth suffers from—has made it clear that our schools, hospitals, and military are anything but tranquil. In places where they once would have thought themselves safe, citizens fear another attack.

This is not only unacceptable, but it also demonstrates how far our country has strayed from a central constitutional principle. The preamble’s call for “domestic Tranquility” and the Second Amendment’s embrace of regulation do not merely allow Congress to act to regulate guns; they impel Congress to do so.

What about the worry that some forms of regulation still violate the second amendment? As Burger said in 1991, the idea that the second amendment prohibits gun regulation is “one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word fraud – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” And Burger’s view of the amendment squares with what the supreme court has said more recently
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Rep... (show quote)


Good grief kevvy, give it up already!! This topic is old and stale at this point.. You just don’t know when to say Uncle and move on..

How many gun threads does it take repeating the same garbage over and over again?? You would think by now you would have learned how wrong you are...

Reply
 
 
Mar 17, 2018 12:59:36   #
Gatsby
 
Kevyn: Your "well respected conservative Supream Court Justice" couldn't even get the second amendment right.

The commission to celebrate the bi-centenial of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, headed by Burger,

altered the punctuation of the second amendment in the copies of the Biil of Rights that they distributed

in recognition of the 200th anniversary of its ratification.

Burger's version:
A well-regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

SCOTUS version (unanimously accepted in D.C. v. Heller):
A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Kevyn wrote:
Everyone here should note I posted a detailed article about a portion of our constitution and bill of rights that was the opinion of a well respected conservative Supreme Court Justice. In response semiman posted a ridiculous bald faced lie about South Africa that had nothing to do with my post. Everyone else blinded by ignorance choose to attack the thoughtful article I posted and were strangely oblivious to semimans outrageous lie.

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 13:05:54   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
lindajoy wrote:
Good grief kevvy, give it up already!! This topic is old and stale at this point.. You just don’t know when to say Uncle and move on..

How many gun threads does it take repeating the same garbage over and over again?? You would think by now you would have learned how wrong you are...
Trolling lies is the point.

It's not like the Truth would work for them.

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 14:23:00   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Kevyn wrote:
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Republican appointee, explained why the text of the Second Amendment affirms the importance of gun regulation. The first words of the amendment, Burger pointed out, are “a well regulated Militia.” This language presupposes the idea that the militias should be regulated. So, Burger reasoned, if the amendment rests on the assumption that well-trained state armies could be regulated, then it is sensible to think it also allows Congress to regulate guns among the general citizenry.

The constitutional argument for gun regulation also goes beyond the Second Amendment. The Constitution’s preamble speaks of the need to “insure domestic Tranquility”—a fundamental task of any government that can be aided by regulating deadly weapons. The recent tragedy in Florida—merely the newest in a line of one numbing bloodbath after another, a crisis that no other developed country on earth suffers from—has made it clear that our schools, hospitals, and military are anything but tranquil. In places where they once would have thought themselves safe, citizens fear another attack.

This is not only unacceptable, but it also demonstrates how far our country has strayed from a central constitutional principle. The preamble’s call for “domestic Tranquility” and the Second Amendment’s embrace of regulation do not merely allow Congress to act to regulate guns; they impel Congress to do so.

What about the worry that some forms of regulation still violate the second amendment? As Burger said in 1991, the idea that the second amendment prohibits gun regulation is “one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word fraud – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” And Burger’s view of the amendment squares with what the supreme court has said more recently
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Rep... (show quote)
You didn't write this, and neither did justice Burger, so why don't you credit the leftist hack who did?

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 18:29:32   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
archie bunker wrote:
One man's opinion.


Here's some more lies for ya.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/490f91bc-fde1-35e3-8ca1-3538ea60f1e2/the-biggest-lies-about-the.html

Reply
 
 
Mar 17, 2018 19:37:19   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 


Not interested bob. A yahoo using yahoo instead of his own mind. Sigh......

Reply
Mar 17, 2018 22:43:13   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Super Dave wrote:
Trolling lies is the point.

It's not like the Truth would work for them.


Its old, he could at least come up with some new material~~Even if it is a lie..

Reply
Mar 18, 2018 00:18:07   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
lindajoy wrote:
Its old, he could at least come up with some new material~~Even if it is a lie..

That would be nice

Reply
Mar 18, 2018 08:30:54   #
Texas Truth Loc: Behind Enemy Lines
 
Kevyn wrote:
There is a particularly vile medical condition known as fecal vomiting, it is more and more obvious from your posts that you suffer from this condition. Take a minute to look it up on web MD as they offer treatment options. I don’t know the source that fills you with this crap. South Africa has had a murder rate that is high at roughly 10,000 a year in a nation of nearly sixty million. The majority of victims are black as is the majority of the population, there simply are not a half million white people murdered or a million and a half missing this is pure rubbish. Not to mention it has nothing to do with my post which simply points out the constitutional duty of congress to regulate, not confiscate firearms. By the way isn’t it time for you to drive your red penis prosthetic down to the circle k and do some burnouts and doughnuts to impress the knuckleheads hanging out in the parking lot?
There is a particularly vile medical condition kno... (show quote)


Maybe you need to go live in South Africa for a while. I have a tee shirt you can wear while you are there.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.