Should states decide on gun ownership?

You are so wrong. Why don't you read the writings of the ratifiers of the 2ND back in 1791?? I know that answer. 'Cause you're an authoritarian on the subject of Arms ownership.

 

Hardly. Assisting Ukraine is an act to help those people prevent authoritarian rule. Or did you think Putin was just there to visit?
There are times to say no- and that time is frequently when people are authoritarian, attempting to force their will on others.
You a Putin fan, approve of the invasion of small countries by huge ones?

 

Slavery was abolished in the 1860's, time for you to get off your moral high horse since you don't belong there anyway. Trouble for you is that 2A is still in effect. Sucks that you don't know world history, sucks to be you.

 

In a way that's precisely what it is, except that it limits Congress on what they can control.

 

To say exactly what?

 

There is a restriction on the Federal Government's regulation of firearms.

 

You're welcome to be specific. Of course you can't.

Why don't you tell us why the heavily armed people of the time, all of whom possessed weapons, who intentionally put the right to bear arms right after the right to free speech in the Bill of Rights, didn't support what I said.

You'll prevaricate and make generalizations now without actually saying anything.

Go ahead.

 

We're not discussing that. We're discussing the importance of individual right to bear arms, which is exemplified in Ukraine's reaction to an invasion and the breakdown of the rule of law.

All things which can and do happen, despite people's claim that we don't need guns because we live in a "civilized country".

Yet we do not live in a civilized world, and the right to self defense was enshrined in the 2A by men who lived through just such a situation: where every man owned his own weapons, and could band together in groups large or small to protect themselves from aggression and tyranny.

With democrats destroying the country and emptying the jails onto our streets, we're going to need them sooner or later.

 

Exactly.

The 2nd does not say you must own arms, only that you have a right to and that the right shall not be infringed.
The founders writing the constitution knew it must limit the appetite for power in government, and thus specifically prohibits it's controlling the means of defense of the citizens.

 

So, you do not ascribe to the stupid Militia theory that it's just a reminder not to forget to give the state Militia guns?

 

Stupid is failing to understand something so obvious. It helps to understand what a "militia" is, and a great many do not.

The militia statement (translated to the average reading skill ) simply says- that an armed citizenry is necessary to insure the security of the nation.
A militia is an armed defense force that can be created from the general public if needed to help defend the nation. Abe Lincoln called for a militia to volunteer (bring your rifle, your ammo, your horse) at the beginning of the civil war because the army of the north was greatly out-numbered. In a few weeks, 75,000 militia came forward from the public and changed the odds. The militia is not a standing army, it is a group of volunteer citizens aiding the nation.

 

Being against giving the government the power to regulate something is being opposite to being authoritarian.
It looks like you just don’t understand what a constitution is and what that document represents. I observed such a hole in knowledge in people who lived a large portion of their lives in authoritarian states where constitution is a meaningless document and where it’s a norm for a local despot to walk all over it. It’s highly visible when you attempt to use statements and writings of people who signed the constitution anywhere but the document in question itself, the constitution, to reinterpret the meaning of the written document itself.

 

What opponent? I am not afraid of losing the guns I own.

...
bear arms
1 : to carry or possess arms
2 : to serve as a soldier
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear

...
What dumb is denying there are infringements and you agree with them. You know it. I know it, and everyone else knows it.
But, many in your camp have no problem with infringements if you agree with them. Quite hypocritical. You know it, I know it, everyone else knows it.

 

Heller mentions some of these: felons, mentally ill, etc.

There are actual infringements, thanks to Democrats, such as tax stamps that are basically the equivalent of a poll tax.

None of these laws, such as the "assault weapons ban", have been shown to have any effect on crime whatsoever. CA is not safer thanks to it's magazine ban, and MD was not safe when citizens couldn't get a firearm permit. Clearly NY is not safer thanks to it's gun laws.

What esoteric and fringe argument would you like to suggest I agree with?

Go ahead.

 

Again, infringements.
I care not if you are for certain infringements.
You just agree with some and disagree with some.

Your infringement agreements is no different than anothers infringement agreement. They're all personal opinion that support infringement of the 2A.

 

Oh I'm sure you're right about the opinion you're keeping to yourself. You go ahead and go with that.

Just yesterday I was thinking to myself "Why CAN'T I shout "fire" in a crowded theater?" Those infringing bastards.

 

Another dude who uses Jefferson in their ID picture who has no idea what conservativism means.

 

You're right. That restriction is in the last phrase in the 2ND: '...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (due to state constitution Arms declarations), shall not be infringed (by the federal government).'

 

Like I posted, you're an authoritarian when it comes to gun ownership in America.

 

No it does not. Read the writings of the ratifiers of the 2ND in 1791.

 

The 14th Amendment incorporates the Federal Prohibition onto the States.

 

Demanding federal universal gun ownership for Americans when there is no such mention of said universal gun ownership in The Constitution or amendments is authoritarian.

 

What?? The Constitution always supersedes the laws of states.

 

The Constitution Forbids the Federal Government from encroaching on certain rights. The 14th Amendment incorporates that prohibition against the States. That's why Democrat States can no longer practice the 4th amendment violating practice of slavery.

Initially this was guaranteed by law, but, it became clear that it would require constitutional amendments, so, the GOP passed and ratified these amendments while several Democrat States were still succeeded (so unrepresented in Congress) and then made ratification a condition of resuming Statehood.

 

No, the more powers a government has to prohibit something, the more authoritarian it is.
The constitution expressly prohibits the U.S. government from taking away guns from its subjects. Giving the government such right would result in a more authoritarian government.