fiatlux

Lol, desk job in the Air Force. Hmmm...

Either you are grossly misinformed, or you know but prefer to mislead.

I had several waterguns growing up. That's it.

I do not feel threatened by a "right that has been on the books for 225 years (and it is not exactly a right, as it is limited to a group)," I feel threatened by the guns and the people who unreasonably want no restrictions on lethal weapons.

The 1st Amendment is the most important right to our Republic (though you may disagree): is it "infringed"? Yes! Reason has dictated some limits. Libel. Plagiary. Sedition. But the 2nd Amendment, where my--our--life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is directly threatened at every moment should have no reasonable restrictions? Define "infringe." Getting a license and waiting for three months for approval? Not having a rocket launcher? Limited to a ten round clip? What does that "infringe"?

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

I am sure your life is in constant jeopardy at every moment by the people that know you.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

So..... will you be moving when we have President Trump? Or will you come to grip with reality.... that is unicorns are not real, conspiracy theories for the most part are not real, you can not have free stuff because someone has to pay for it, and life can be good..... for you I recommend healthier living by pharmaceuticals. It is no shame to seek help.....

Do not worry over the bogyman, he too is not real!

Thank Goodness, wrapping up the last year of rainbow and unicorns!

Gatsby

So much more FERTILIZER fiatlux!

The rights of the people belong equally to all.

According to your logic,

"We the People", have only the rights that you choose to avail your self of?

"We the people", have only the rights that you approve of?

If I choose not to vote, then you have no right to vote?

You are clearly of the "two bit tin plated dictator class"

First, please get a functioning mind, then take classes on how to use it.

Bob

quote=fiatlux]The Second Amendment protects only gun owners, so it is not a right but a privilege for an elite class of people. The Second Amendment is a direct threat to my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unrestricted gun ownership? This is a threat on the common good. It is domestic terrorism. The irresponsible proliferation of arms to any citizen to use in any form they feel a need, is an abomination.[/quote]

fiatlux

Once again the Right offers only ad hominem as argument, which tickles the lizard brain of their like-minded neanderthals to no end. This is there feed. Hate! Anger! Fear! The primitive brain of the Right. It is winning through Trump. A new Reich is born.

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

I can see why you are bitter after losing that much sought after job in the cornfield scaring the crows away but at least you are a member of the scarecrows Union and a new position is sure to open soon.A women as butt ugly as you are won't be unemployed long.

sweetlips

sorry fellow, there are universal restrictions, you should know what you are talking about before you open your dumb mouth. Go to your local gun store and try to buy one. You have a right to legal help also, does that mean you have to be a criminal to use it, maybe that is the one for you

BearK Loc: TN

This sentence in particular: The irresponsible proliferation of arms to any citizen to use in any form they feel a need, is an abomination.

First of all, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. There are many restrictions on the use of firearms.

Secondly, who made you god to condemn or condone? Why should your feelings of right or wrong supersede mine as long as neither of us is harming the other?

It appears that you are saying that my right to life, liberty, and happiness only count if they agree with yours.

Get over yourself, you are not THAT important.

Gatsby

I must say, that is an interesting line of thought!

In your first assertion, you tell me that, because some Americans make a choice not to own firearms; it is not a right but a privilege.

In that assertion you also logically imply the following:
1. Since some Americans make a choice not to vote, voting is not a right, but a privilege.
2. Since some Americans make a choice not to practice religion, that freedom of religion is not a right, but a privilege.
3. Since some Americans make a choice not to publish, freedom of the press is not a freedom but a privilege.

To get directly to my point, your assertion directly implies that the "Bill of Rights" is actually the "Bill of Privileges".

Next you assert that Article II in the Bill of Rights, "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", is a "direct threat to your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

In reply I assert that:

1. The phrase "a free state" the word state does not apply to the political state, such as New York or Virginia, but to "a state of being", such as is defined by the very phrase you quote, security of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2. The term "militia" refers to "All of the citizens capable of bearing arms".
3. The physical (not political) "state of being" in this nation as a whole, is currently the most secure that it has been in over 20 years.
A. From 1995-2014 Murder Rate Declined 45%*
B. From 1995-2014 Violent Crime Rate Declined 47%*
C. From 1995-2014 Gun ownership Increased by 48%**

I therefore assert that history proves that the better (more) armed this militia is, the more secure your "state of being" will be!

I further assert that to follow the path of your logic can only lead to insanity.

* DOJ UCR FOR 2014
**Washing post More guns in United States that people.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

None of us are that important that we should be allowed to rearrange the Constitution to suit their desire for a one world dictatorship. If Rumi doesn't want a gun that is great. He probably has been in and out of mental institutions so would not be allowed one. Neither you nor I are 0lanning to kill him, but the criminal with an illegal gun may do so. I have few earthly goods that would be worth stealing, but there are a number of "progressives" who would like to see me dead and several have actually threatened me over the years. So far they are only threats, but guns and dogs are here if and when I need them.

gmanp135

Actually the second amendment protects ALL citizens,even those too stupid to realize it,it is a God given right,bestowed upon us by our creator,the government has no authority to restrict or regulate ANY of our rights,the second amendment is not about sporting or hunting,it is about the citizens ability to contain an out of control government,if you don't believe this google search the battle of Athens.If fire arms are so offensive try moving to Russia,China,Cambodia,or one of many other nations that seized the fire arms from the populace,it seems to have worked real well for them. Sorry if my passion for fire arms offends you,believe me your lack of courage offends me more.

gmanp135

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Misreading or distorting an amendment, or in the case of the 2nd amendment, only reading or applying PART of the amendment - is not the fault of said amendment. It is the mandate of the USSC to determine that law is consistent with the ORIGINAL wording and intent of the Constitution - not to re-interpret it according to prevailing sentiment.

The Supreme Court has failed it's mandate repeatedly - by redefining and re-interpreting the Constitution to match current partisan desires. The 2nd amendment does NOT protect gun owners, nor was it ever meant to, it protects the right of the STATE to maintain an armed militia and that's ALL it does. The court refused to define what constituted an "armed militia", thus allowing that definition to be ignored and the amendment erroneously applied to all gun owners. The PURPOSE of that amendment is well documented, so there is no excuse for the courts failure in this matter - except for their bowing to partisan pressure - something they are FORBIDDEN from doing by the very Constitution they are to protect.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

BOO!!!!

JimMe

"... The irresponsible proliferation of arms to any citizen to use in any form they feel a need, is an abomination..."

Is NOT what the 2nd Amendment allows for... It allows for the Individual to Protect themselves, their families, and their properties...

Where does someone owning a gun under the 2nd Amendment cause a

"... direct threat to my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."?!?

IT DOESN'T!!!