How do we reduce gun violence?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "THE" militia, it says "A" militia.

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to "THE" militia of the United States. "THE" militia of the United States is controlled by congress, and the Bill of Rights lists those things the Federal Government is NOT allowed to have authority over, therefore, the 2nd Amendment has no correlation or involvement in the US militia.

 

There is Only one Militia of the United States: 10USC311.

 

Deport 20,000,000 illegal aliens, so the inner city blacks can get those jobs they illegals leave behind. That should be what the blacks were asking for anyway, better and more jobs. More working inner city folk=less inner city gangs. Which equals less crime and violence. Start with deportation en masse'.

 

Then according to the 2nd Amendment, congress is specifically forbidden to interfere in it's activities. I guess 10 USC 311 is now null and void.

 

He fudged the text!

Say it ain't so!

 

1. Get rid of gun free zones - they are killing grounds
2. Increase the percentage of people carrying concealed firearms - the more the better

 

That is not what our Second Amendment says.

 

Sure it does, it says the militia shall not be infringed.

Anyone who is not soothsaying or an infidel would recognize this.

 

Nope; it says well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not unorganized militia and gun lovers.

 

shall not be infringed. Clearly they're talking about the militia here only those without cause would disagree.

 

Special pleading to make a point you don't have? It says well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State. That does not include the unorganized militia or gun lovers with out a clue or a Cause.

 

Only those without cause would declare special pleading to beg ignorance of congressional denial of authority to infringe on militia requirements. Such is both soothsay and gainsay without clue or cause.

 

Why not try enforcing our immigration laws that are already on the books since 50% of all gang members are illegal aliens and 1/2 of all gun crimes are committed by gang members. That would take a big chunk out of crimes committed with a gun.

 

71% of those arrested have rap sheets. How about we quit releasing violent criminals back onto the streets to create more victims.

 

You're funny no matter what they say. I think it's great you're beating trolls with their own words on this subject and making a lot of sense from what has been nonsense to this point. Great tweaking to get to the truth.

 

no more reason to work with?

Well regulated militia may not be infringed by gun lovers or the unorganized militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. That is what being necessary to the security of a free State means.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it is even funnier that those with Only fallacy to work with think anyone takes them seriously.

 

The fallacy is in your lack of cause to recognize the congress of our united states has no clue or cause to gainsay the amendments of our constitution which forbids their involvement. Only the clueless and those infidels without cause could gainsay such facts as we have provided.

 

did you know that non sequiturs mean you lost since it is Only a fallacy?

 

only you without a clue or a cause would promote such gainsay that is in and of itself fallacy.

 

a well regulated fallacy with an appeal to trolling in a constitutional convention, should cause bears to question the Declaration of Independence

On at least six different boards I have seen this same gibberish that completely twists around what the founders intended and what the second amendment sought to guarantee. and gun violence is not a problem with the constitution but a problem with criminals

 

I hope he keeps going, I'm starting to enjoy this.

 

the chip has a limited storage and you will see the same stuff over and over and over. Its all ridiculous and the use of English suggests an intentional affectation or more likely-an artificial intelligence project that isn't quite ready for market yet. and its the same stuff on board after board after board

 

Well, one of two things are certain. Either whoever programmed it wasn't very bright, or whoever puts the arguments into it isn't very bright.

 

NO doubt. its the same swill day in day out. that is why I don't generally address it. I learned that from other boards and I already know what I am gong to see in response.

 

It's okay. I don't take you seriously. If you wanted to be taken seriously you would come up with one cite, one statute, one quote from a founding father, even a definition from a legal dictionary in support of your theory.

As per your previous statement, remember the court's decision in Nunn v State? I've quoted it many times. the courts disagree with your assertion about what "necessary to the security of a free State means."