acknowledgeurma

I think what you suggest is reasonable and probably in line with what the founders intended with the 2nd amendment. But given the current climate, and Republican politicians' reliance on the enthusiasm for unlimited gun access on the part of a large and active group of their supporters, seeing the limitations you suggest are very unlikely. Sad.

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

The following reports coincide with what Assange said a few days ago
Can anyone answer this simple question?

Why is it that 94% of mass shootings are perpetrated by people who have either identified or registered as a Democrat? @TheDemocrats @DNC #TriggeredLiberals//t.co/xS9zzA9Jdn

— Julian Assange ⏳ (@TheRealJuIian) February 17, 2018
You will NEVER hear this mentioned by the mainstream media.

Antifa Plans To Trap Conservatives In 'Kill Zones'
http://yournewswire.com/antifa-conservatives-kill-zones/

Antifa is the Domestic Terrorist Arm of the Democrats
http://conservative-headlines.org/antifa-is-a-domestic-terrorist-organization-and-must-be-denounced-by-democrats/

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

I hate to disappoint you and your efforts to help liberals understand. 5 cities in America that requires their citizens to own or carry guns have the lowest crime rate in the nation, and the 5 top strictest cities with gun control or gun free zones have the highest gun related crimes.

Giving these facts to liberals is no different than trying to play pictionary with Helen Keller and equally frustrating.

Outlawing to liberals is rational....

We outlawed Heroine, gee thank goodness we did, now there are only thousands of deaths, from not only the drug but the drug dealers, gangs. Then the burglaries, robberies by junkies. Plus five other things I can't think of right now.

Who controls trafficking Heroine, it's the drug dealers, gangs. The same ones that ignored the fact Heroine is outlawed, in the liberal minds will respect any guns that are outlawed. The liberal mental defects preventing rational thought and critical thinking skills is absent of explanation to me, with exception to spiritual blindness.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

OK, thanks.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

It's beyond understanding, the liberal mind.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Let's get one thing true your head Floyd,

Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of the document. The Second Amendment states: “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.”

As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative clause; rather, it explains its purpose.

The operative clause is, of course, clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” As Scalia correctly observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the Bill of Rights uses the phrase “right of the people,” the text “unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights.” Further, the language clearly indicates that the amendment wasn’t creating a new right but recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language “shall not be infringed” indicates recognition, not creation.

But what about the prefatory clause? What does the a “well regulated militia” have to do with an individual right? Scalia explained well in Heller:

The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.

To believe that the Second Amendment is a collective right, Scalia concluded, is to believe that the authors of the Bill of Rights employed individualist language in order to protect the people’s right to take part in militia organizations over which the national government enjoys plenary power.

Naturally, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights spells out every individual liberty. (Indeed, the Ninth Amendment declares this quite clearly, saying, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) But, in the face of pressure from those who were skeptical of the new government, a few core rights were given special protections to which the people might appeal if the government attempted to take them away. As explained below, the colonists remembered the English king’s tyrannical efforts to suppress liberty in part through the confiscation of arms. The Second Amendment was the response.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

More to get into your head.,

THE HISTORICAL RECORD UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPPORTS THE EXISTENCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

It is critical to remember that the Founding Fathers were Englishmen before they were Americans. When they began to sow the seeds of revolt against the British crown, they sought not to destroy all that had gone before but to protect rights that they believed they already possessed. Thus, when George III responded to unrest by attempting to disarm rebellious colonists, he “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms,” Scalia wrote. (“Arms,” incidentally, did not mean only “muskets” but included any personal weapon that could be wielded by an individual, including but not limited to “musket and bayonet,” “side arms,” and “sabre, holster pistols, and carbine.”)

Justice Scalia understood this well:

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” Other contemporary authorities concurred. Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence. (Citations omitted.)

Writing in 1803, after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, St. George Tucker updated Blackstone’s Commentaries. In America, Tucker wrote, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . . . and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” The United States, he boasted, “may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”

Similar explanations were forthcoming from all of the major jurists of the era, including William Rawle and Joseph Story. There are no published arguments to the contrary.

The assertion that there was no right to own a weapon would have utterly mystified the American colonist.

Not all colonists owned guns. But it is well established that guns were widely owned and widely used in colonial America. Frankly, the assertion that there was no right to own a weapon would have utterly mystified the American colonist, who would have rightly seen such a notion as dangerous to his independence and to his life. As free men have argued since the days of Justinian, every individual enjoys an inalienable right to self-defense. To strip him of access to arms is, effectively, to strip him of the capacity to exercise that right. For an example of this, one needs only look at the Reconstruction-era South, in which whites were helped along in their domination of freed blacks by laws that deprived former slaves of their guns.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Last to cram into your brain,

NATURAL LAW SUPPORTS THE EXISTENCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

One cannot analyze the Second Amendment without understanding its moral and philosophical underpinnings. Colonial America was a land populated by people who were both highly literate biblically and steeped in Lockean philosophy.

The biblical record sanctioning self-defense is clear. In Exodus 22, the Law of Moses permits a homeowner to kill even a mere thief who entered his home at night, and the books of Esther and Nehemiah celebrate the self-defense of the Jews against their lawless attackers. Nehemiah exhorted the Israelites to defend themselves: “Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.” The oft-forgotten climax of the book of Esther is an act of bloody self-defense against a genocidal foe.

Nor did Jesus require his followers to surrender their lives — or the lives of spouses, children, or neighbors — in the face of armed attack. His disciples carried swords, and in one memorable passage in Luke 22, he declared there were circumstances in which the unarmed should arm themselves: “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Christ’s famous admonition in his Sermon the Mount to “turn the other cheek” in the face of a physical blow is not a command to surrender to deadly violence, and it certainly isn’t a command to surrender family members or neighbors to deadly violence.

In his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke described the right of self-defense as a “fundamental law of nature”:

Sec. 16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, Locke argues, these laws of nature were inseparable from the will of God:

The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.

This right is so fundamental that it’s difficult to find even leftist writers who would deny a citizen the right to protect her own life. Yet at the same time, many would deny Americans the right of effective self-defense by leaving their ability to own and carry a weapon to the good graces of the government. Alas, fists are notoriously ineffective against armed criminals, and they are wholly useless against a tyrannical state.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

[quote=jack sequim wa]Let's get one thing true your head Floyd,

Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of the document. The Second Amendment states: “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.”

As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative clause; rather, it explains its purpose.

The operative clause is, of course, clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” As Scalia correctly observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the Bill of Rights uses the phrase “right of the people,” the text “unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights.” Further, the language clearly indicates that the amendment wasn’t creating a new right but recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language “shall not be infringed” indicates recognition, not creation.

But what about the prefatory clause? What does the a “well regulated militia” have to do with an individual right? Scalia explained well in Heller:

The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.

To believe that the Second Amendment is a collective right, Scalia concluded, is to believe that the authors of the Bill of Rights employed individualist language in order to protect the people’s right to take part in militia organizations over which the national government enjoys plenary power.

Naturally, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights spells out every individual liberty. (Indeed, the Ninth Amendment declares this quite clearly, saying, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) But, in the face of pressure from those who were skeptical of the new government, a few core rights were given special protections to which the people might appeal if the government attempted to take them away. As explained below, the colonists remembered the English king’s tyrannical efforts to suppress liberty in part through the confiscation of arms. The Second Amendment was the response.[/quote]

Settled law.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

'Connection', you say? Is that like having a 'connection to a union, or a 'connection' to a member of Congress, perhaps? Do you have any idea what a 'well regulated militia' actually is? Here's a clue, the phrase 'well regulated' does not refer to anything government or any kind of 'limitations'. Quite the opposite.


With who? Is there somebody out there who thinks he can wander into my home and help himself? I'm afraid that could well turn out badly for that person so no, I don't believe I need to 'work on' any 'issue' concerning my weapons or their retention. I'd go further and suggest that those who think they can separate me from my weapons are the ones with the 'issue'.


What everyone should, or should not be able to do in your opinion makes little difference to me. If you want to amend the constitution to limit the availability of firearms to the militia that's your 'issue'. Go for it. If it passes. I'll acquiesce. If not, go away. I'll enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.

By the way, just exactly who is 'the militia'?


I think you're a little confused. Established in 1636 when ordinary citizens formed militias to defend against hostile attacks, the National Guard is the country’s oldest military branch. The Guard’s citizen-soldiers have served as the nation’s first line of defense since America’s birth and have fought in every major conflict in America's history. Every. Single. Conflict. There is still a National Guard and it is meant to be a part of the military by design. The difference between the National Guard and the citizen militia? National Guard troops are supplied by the government, militia supply themselves.

As for 'qualifying' to keep my guns, I already do. My qualification is part of the highest law of the land. Here's the relevant section:

"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".

Have you ever heard those words before? Do you comprehend the meaning and purpose of that law? Yes, law. It's a law. It is the highest law of the land and part of the founding documents of these United States. That's the law you are so keen to overturn. Well, go ahead, take your 'issue' to the people and let's see if the laughter dies down before next Christmas.


Is English your first language? I'm going to rephrase that so we all know what I think it says:

'Because of ownership limitations, commerce in firearms would be suppressed'.

Allow me to reiterate; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Keep and bear arms. A right. Not to be infringed. What is so hard to understand about that statement? Seriously! This is plain English. Who could have what and what kinds, you say? Hmm. "Shall... not... be... infringed...".

Have you ever read the Constitution? It's a fascinating document. You really should spend some time with it.

debeda

OR.........Create a giant black market industry. Like pot. Remember? When are YOU gonna get it in your head that criminals are NOT gonna follow gun laws. Why? Cuz they're criminals! Ya know, people who don't follow laws?? And the whole school shooting thing? Didn't happen when kids weren't drugged. When I was a kid most of the boys in the neighborhood had 22s. The only ones in danger were pheasants and bunnies. This was in DuPage county, Illinois. Very close to Chicago. What has changed is society. We no longer have a strong moral culture. Kids are raised mostly in the tender care of day care centers. Mothers are stressed trying to work, maintain a household and parent. Many fathers are still stuck in the 50s thinking that going to work and mowing the lawn once a week is their contribution to the family. Grandmas are still working into their 70s to survive so can't care for grandchildren while mothers work. This of course is not everyone, but a large enough percentage that the kids suffer the lack of a strong safe environment with consistent rules and boundaries. But to hear the nattering of the left, you'd think the guns were to blame. Kinda like Terminator Rise of the Machines. Get your heads out of your collective butts and look around you. Talk to people. Observe. These things are obvious to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

There is negligence on the part of some one some where on the issue of gun control.
There will be a hungry lawyer some where who will see a loop hole some where & the whole bag will be opened.

These school kids will soon be voting & those that oppose gun control in any form will get a message for them.

Isn't the job of the government to protect Us.
Well it seems that job is not being done very well in some areas.

Well being shot sure cuts into the Life, Liberty & Happeness of some.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Isn't the job of government to protect us??

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gov is not yo mama.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

Just remember that The constitution also provides protection for every one to Life, Liberty & Happiness.
When the streets become a proplem with indiscriminet shootings There is an fringment on those individuals.

So some one some where is not getting that job done.

The streets have been turned back into the days of the old wild west.
Towns back then made people turn in their guns in towns. No open carry.

If I have one right that right should be the right to walk freely on the streets of America with out fear of being shot.
Or are we to go back to who's the fastest gun. Where is my protection under the law.

If there continues to be no reasonable controls over what guns & only in possession of reasonable people.
The day will come when all guns will be taken a way form the private citizens.

It is for those that wish to keep their guns who need to find the answers to the problem.
If they choose to only voice their rights as perceived by them now .
They will not win.

I have no gun & rely on my government to do the right thing on this issue.

PROTECT ME & MY RIGHTS.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

US Constitution: Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Do you see the word 'protection' in there? Do you see that word anywhere in the constitution? Another word you won't find in the US Constitution or in any of the constitutions of the fifty States: 'Democracy'. There's good reasons why those words do not appear in those documents. There's no 'confusion'. There's no snowflake little turd whining and crying about how the Constitution is supposed to protect him from his big, bad neighbors.

If you walk down your street looking over your shoulder worrying about where the bullet's going to come from, I suggest you find a good psychiatrist to help you with your paranoia. Otherwise, find a quieter place to live. The law is not there to protect you, the legal system is there to apprehend and punish those who break the law, hopefully to promote the general welfare. Oops, there's another egregiously misunderstood and highly twisted word, 'welfare'. Sometimes, there can be no substitute for having 'the fastest gun' as you put it.