Visualizing gun deaths – Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

But the interpretation and implementation of laws do change as a society evolves.

The arguments we hear now, will continue for some time. But over two or three generations, the views of Americans and subsequent laws will likely change.

People are entrenched in their views right now, so no... we won't see much change. This is right up there with Civil Rights and Gay Rights. The nation's views change over time.

 

that is not honest. If you don't like what the 2A means, get people to agree to another constitutional convention and

1) get rid of it

2) and then delegate to the federal government a power it never properly had in the first place-to interfere with what the founders saw as a pre-existing right of free citizens to be armed as they who choose

claiming that the meaning of the constitution changes based on the whims of mainly left wing statists is complete and utter nonsense

 

only the right thinks like that; some on the left know there is no appeal to ignorance of the law and expect the Judicature to faithfully adhere to that principle.

 

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the founder's intentions in the use of common phrases of the time. The Constitution means what it meant to the men who wrote it, not the people who interpret it using today's dictionary. You have demonstrated willful and persistent ignorance of the meanings of several phrases in The Constitution, even in light of indisputable evidence to the contrary. The phrase "Free State" in the 2A means refers to same State as "The State Department" and "The Secretary of State". References to the 'several states' were stated in a different way. There are many many examples of the founders using that phrase in the way I describe.

You may continue to wallow in your misinterpretations and willful ignorance because it suits your personal agenda, but there is no appeal to ignorance of our Founders intentions. The truth is there for those who seek it.

 

I am not sure what you mean. Can you re-phrase your position in a more concise manner? We have a Second Amendment. What does that amendment mean to you, specifically as a Person and potentially a part of the Electorate of the United States.

 

What do you not understand about the simple fact that a person willing to murder in cold blood will NOT obey your silly one magazine statute?

 

LMFAO given the source this is the funniest thing I've read on PF yet.

 

We have a Second Amendment. What does that amendment mean to you, specifically as a Person and potentially a part of the Electorate of the United States.

 

are you serious? Have you ever smoked a joint? you should lead the jihad to confiscate all the weapons you want banned.

You are just talking about of your six and you have proven you clearly have no clue about what makes people dangerous. ask any federal prosecutor about the bank robbers and hard core traffickers they have prosecuted-few of them have more than a few weapons

but you don't care-its not about crime its about harassing people you don't like politically. SO you will just make bald faced assertions that more guns means more dangerous with ZERO evidence to support it because you know damn well gun collectors and competitive shooters aren't the problem (other than they tend to vote for Republicans and that is what really annoys people like you)

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, the lost leading the blind is more like it when it comes to firearms knowledge

- - - Updated - - -

Is a male having a penis an infringement on the virginity of girls? again, your posts are the nadir of silliness

 

Oh come on, everyone knows some one willing to face the death penalty is so terrified of being caught with an illegal weapon they wouldn't dare violate a law that cannot be enforced. I have hundreds of normal capacity magazines. NONE OF THEM HAVE SERIAL NUMBERS. HOW is this law one of our resident gun banners craves going to work? and if people are told they are going to be thrown in prison for owning a 15 dollar spring in a metal box, they might as well resist violently. and after a bunch of politicians see people getting killed over a stupid law, maybe even some of their own, I doubt the popularity of such an action is going to be real high

 

This is what happens when society neuters the male emotionally. They become as some Euro Weenie totin' 'man bags' and sipping Starbucks with some babe who doesn't shave her armpits.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. Who did Great Britain turn to in 1939 for arms to fight the Nazis? It sure as Hell wasn't the Dutch, French, etc. How is an elderly person or a female to defend themselves against violent offenders? Kung Fu?

 

it means gun lovers don't really have a social clue or a social Cause; so it must be more about lucre than social justice--and should be hear-said or sooth-said, accordingly.

 

So your statement is admittedly false. All I did was say your tactic Is poor debating. Took no stand on your issue as you should be aware. And responsible gun ownership is hardly gun grabbing except in the mind of the paranoid. Have several and they are properly registered as required. I also have my own range and practice faithfully.

 

The Second Amendment does not provide any rights.

 

Are you actually proposing that arms in the hands of individual Americans had any impact on the war against Germany?

 

It "executes" the Power and Right of a State to accomplish this:

 

No. The Second Amendment does not provide any rights. Whatever rights to have a gun are subject to law; which is to say that such rights are not unlimited - much less absolute.

 

as is the case with all of your posts-which tend to be the same forum to forum thread to thread, that makes no sense.

- - - Updated - - -

actually the second amendment was intended to RECOGNIZE rights that those who wrote the constitution assumed pre existed government. This is most important in interpreting the extent of the right and the complete ban on the federal government from interfering. The FDR rape of the tenth amendment and the expansion of the commerce clause is clearly unconstitutional if one actually follows the founders' intent.

 

Our Tenth Amendment says otherwise.

 

An historical view of gun control in the U.S. The right wing never really had a problem with gun control in the 'good old days'; the current arm flapping is a new schtick for the 'Right' and 'conservatives'. Personally I'm against gun control, nonetheless, for a number of reasons. Personal protection of individuals has never been a priority in this country for the government, for one, and there aren't enough police to handle it alone, for another. There are more, but I'm too lazy to type out the long list.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

... more.

See also Cramer's selsction of historical sources here. A good read and handy:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/primary.html

 

when people who mouth gun grabbing mantras and engage in arguments that are based on gun grabbing, and have been shown to be incrementalists who the minute one law is passed, start demanding the next "reasonable step" they are gun grabbers.

registration might be a legal requirement where you live but its worthless as a crime fighting tool and is the holy grail for the gun confiscation movement

- - - Updated - - -

most of those laws that had racist roots were democrat party schemes. It sure wasn't the republicans who imposed the Klan laws in the south or the laws targeting blacks in DC and Chicago and NYC

 

Northern states had Black Codes, some passed in the decade before the Civil War and before; New England had gun control laws as well. Lincoln helped write them in Illinois. As for the South, the Republicans' corruption, looting, and military oppression during Reconstruction was a major contributor to the rise of groups like the Klan and fueled hatred for blacks to this day, so quit pretending Republicans are some sort of Great Blessing. They have nothing to brag about as a Party, regardless of what Democrats ever did, any more than Stalinists can claim to have been better than Nazis.

 

I would rather go along with politicians elected, than with gun lovers who refuse to love their republic as much as they love their guns.

 

Except the right to bear arms.

- - - Updated - - -

The 10th amendment is irrelevant to the 2nd n

 

I believe the founders would tar and feather you for saying this ridiculous nonsense.