How is prejudice against Blacks different from prejudice against guns?

Another incoherent rant that avoids the question of what this government has done that is worse than previous governments...

I guess, if the federal government cannot legislate rights, they have no authority to make amendments about my rights... is that what you're saying?

Since I was good enough to locate the posts in which you spoke against the foundation of our government and democratic process, could you provide the post in which I referred to the founding fathers as "a bunch of crackpots"?

In addition, you simultaneously claim that I want to give up my rights to a gun, and want to stand over others with a gun.... Contradict yourself much?

 

then if I am so confusing to you, you bully and insult to what end? Your plan is to beat into submission? good luck with that................................
I gotta ask, by bullying me shows that you use intimidation as a tool,,,.....you do know that children pick up the same attitude about bullying by aping their parents...........
Since I have no children living with me, I don't have the same worries you seem to have.
If you want to resort to insults, name calling, and bullying, also shows you are the aggressor here, not me.
I wonder if your children are in a good position.......maybe CPS should look into your household

 

You've made several statements that I'm asking questions about:
1) You've stated that this government in particular is untrustworthy. I'm asking you to substanciate this by illustrating what this government has done that is more diabolical than the previous government.
2) You've also indicated that the government has no legal authority to legislate in relation to your rights. I've asked you to clarify, so I don't "misrepresent" you.
3) You've indicated that I called the founding fathers "a bunch of crackpots". I'm asking when I did that, as I have no recollection of this event and find it unlikely.

Somehow, me asking you questions that you don't seem to have answers for is "bullying", but you insinuating that I'm some form of child abuser that needs CPS investigation is appropriate?
Clearly, your view on reality is severely skewed.

 

What stupidity. But, since you insist......

No one ever pulled a black guy out of his pocket and yelled "this is a stickup!"
No one ever carried a couple of black guys into an elementary school and killed 20 children.
No one ever assassinated or attempted to assassinate the president with a loaded black guy.
A loaded black guy falling off your end table won't kill anyone.
No child ever killed anyone playing with a loaded black man.
If George Zimmerman had been carrying a loaded black man on his belt trayvon Martin would be alive today.
No one ever broke into a house to steal someone's collection of black men.

Had enough?

 

".. 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.............."
infringe - To impinge is to come into contact or encroach or have an impact; to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate
en•croach (ɛnˈkroʊt&#643
v.i.
1. to advance beyond established or proper limits; make gradual inroads.
2. to trespass upon the property, domain, or rights of another, esp. gradually or stealthily

You have said that our Rights come from some legal entity as opposed to coming from God. These old boys saw the inherent danger of the far reach of government and not only allowed to possession of firearms, but encouraged it. Up to that point in other countries' history, most returning vets of foreign campaigns were required to surrender their arms upon release from service. The American government didn't require it, because they realized that tyranny grows where the people are unarmed

 

If you want people to "interpret the constitution in a reasonable and rational way", then you must first know what the constitution actually says. Secondly you have to get your definitions right. The Constitution gives all Americans the right to "bear arms." It does not actually say firearms. But since hand grenades, RPG's, rocket launchers and nuclear bombs did not exist back then, I think that we can safely exclude them. That pretty much leaves just firearms. But those items listed do not fall into the category of firearms. Webster Dictionary defines firearms as "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder". That means that only handguns and rifles and cannons fall in that category. While I agree that cannons might be overkill, the Constitution gives us the right to own and possess firearms. There is no selfish reasoning in that. It is a simple fact. If you do not like it, move to Canada or England. But do act be selfishly, and try to take my Constitutional Rights from the rest of us.

 

Interesting that you've chosen to still avoid the questions I asked, and have only chosen to define a portion of the quote. Why not define "well regulated"?

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. A "well regulated milita", in order to be functional and of use, would require training.

Nothing I've proposed has been about the banning of firearms, just the regulation of training to ensure owners are proficient in their use and safekeeping; which would also minimize the occurances of firearm theft.

Anyway.... You've avoided answering several questions:
1) You've stated that this government in particular is untrustworthy. I'm asking you to substanciate this by illustrating what this government has done that is more diabolical than the previous government.
2) You've also indicated that the government has no legal authority to legislate in relation to your rights. I've asked you to clarify, so I don't "misrepresent" you.
3) You've indicated that I called the founding fathers "a bunch of crackpots". I'm asking when I did that, as I have no recollection of this event and find it unlikely.

 

I could ask if you are aware of what other modern firearms did not exist in the era of our founding fathers, and should therefore (using your reasoning) be excluded from ownership...

I think it's more important to point out that the Second Amendment doesn’t say everyone has the right to own a gun. It says, “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”. In other words, it starts with an explanation for gun rights. It’s actually the Constitution’s only clause with an explanation. Why?

If gun rights were unlimited and universal, the Second Amendment wouldn’t need an explanation. It would just read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” the way many gun advocates seem to believe it does. The Founding Fathers instead explained the purpose for gun rights — national security — to suggest that those rights apply where they serve that purpose. The Amendment only protects potential militia-members’ rights to bear arms, and only to the extent that America needs militias for national security.

But if that’s the rule, why didn’t the Founding Fathers say so more clearly? Why rely on the explanation? Explanations generally appear in legal documents when the drafters worry a clause will be misused but can’t figure out a clarification, or agree on one. The First Congress apparently wanted to give potential militiamen gun rights but couldn’t come up with a fair-sounding qualification that excluded anyone else. So they fell back on the bluntest knife in the law-maker’s drawer: the explanation. It saved them from potentially unresolvable differences over gun rights, while still providing some kind of limit. (The Founding Fathers may have been history’s greatest political generation, but they weren’t immune to uncomfortable compromises, including on issues that mattered to them much more than guns.

The Second Amendment’s explanation tells us that gun rights apply only to the extent that they support a “well regulated militia” “necessary to the security of a free state.” That was an easy qualification for the Founding Fathers because it wouldn’t restrict gun rights much in their time, if at all. It’s possible they didn’t even give it much thought, which would explain the lack of records on the Amendment’s meaning. In Eighteenth Century America, a militia was, literally, a bunch of average Joseph’s who owned flintlock rifles. Almost any free man could be a member. Militias of these men had played a vital role in winning the War of Independence, and they could be counted on to defend the new nation. So even as qualified, the Second Amendment protected gun rights for just about every free man.

Today, however, a bunch of average Joe’s with guns might, at best, form a scattered guerrilla movement, not a “well regulated militia.” So the portion of gun owners falling outside the Second Amendment’s protection has soared from almost none to almost all. In other words, the landscape has changed, and the Second Amendment, by its own terms, offers almost no protection to modern gun ownership.

This does not mean that guns should be banned, it just means that reasonable standards can and should be implemented to limit the death toll on 'we the people'.

 

Nice tirade. Too bad the Supreme Court does not agree with you. In their most recent ruling, they clearly stated that the 2nd Amendment did gives individuals the right to own firearms. Now, if you want to take you argument up with them. Go ahead. Personally I think they will rule that you have no standing to bring a case, but take your best shot. For now, I will keep my gun handy in case one of your fellow liberals decide to take it away. If that happens, I will not give up my gun. Just my bullets. Just as quick as my gun can fire them.

 

With liberals it's all about

 

1. No government is to be trusted
2. see 2nd A
3. as socialist, it is always your contention that Individual Liberties just seem to confound you. You even admit it:

it wasn't for "national security....that's a dumbass dodge

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional power.
Thomas Jefferson: to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ...........T. Jeffferson

The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers. , Declaration and Protest of Virgina, 1825
http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/index.php
I realize these statements run against your grain, but so what.................

 

Thanks! Glad it came across as a tirade, rather than a lecture.

Yes, it is too bad that today's SCOTUS does not agree... Of course, there is a history of SCOTUS "changing it's mind" on prior rulings. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-13.pdf

How amusing that you couldn't resist adding some BS macho rhetoric threatening to kill anyone who thinks differently from yourself. A good demonstration of maturity and clarity of thought...

 

Really? Tirade: a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation, long, vehement speech. Lecture: a discourse given before an audience or class especially for instruction, a formal reproof. You just say any old silly crude don't you. You are actually boringly disingenuous: lacking in candor; also giving a false appearance of simple frankness.
Especially since you have had your hat handed to you on several occasions, had your math skills proven a catastrophic failure, had your own logic used against you and continued with your tirade. Really you are boring.

If by history you are implying that SCOTUS has a habit of overturning other decisions you need more math lessons eh? Your article relates 204 decisions that overturned approximately 250 some decisions since approximately 1798. Further more from your google range article it states: "Inasmuch as there is not complete agreement among them that all of the cases listed constitute reversals by the Supreme Court of prior decisions, the following symbols have been employed to indicate the authority for inclusion in each instance:
An asterisk (*) designates reversals stated in express terms by the Supreme court; The letters B, D, and A indicate reversals listed respectively by Justice Brandeis, Justice Douglas and Professor Blaustein; Cases not bearing a symbol have been added by the editors of this volume."

Going one step further I have a question for the self-professed math whiz, what percentage does 204 decisions of the thousands and thousands of decisions made by SCOTUS does this constitute and does that constitute the "history of changing its mind" you are implying?
I personally think that SCOTUS follows Stare Decisis ([Latin, Let the decision stand.] The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.)
overwhelmingly. In the United States, courts seek to follow precedent whenever possible, seeking to maintain stability and continuity in the law. Devotion to stare decisis is considered a mark of judicial restraint and I might add based on your link is much more applicable that a "History"

While it's nice to discuss opinions for a short period, discussing and arguing them for a continued period of time is a universal exercise in futility. Your opinions aren't law so I'm done.

 

So you stated that this government in particular is untrustworthy and when asked to substanciate this by illustrating what this government has done that is more diabolical than the previous government, you respond with:

How exactly does that illustrate that this government in particular is any worse than any other government?
Actually, you're saying that you'll never trust any form of government. So what's the alternative? Total anarchy?

You've also indicated that the government has no legal authority to legislate in relation to your rights. I've asked you to clarify, so I don't "misrepresent" you, and you reply with the weakest 7-letter answer ever seen:

So your clarification of the government having no authority to legislate in relation to your rights is an example of the government doing exactly that - and you now pretend to defend that legislation... Wow.

When you assert that I called the founding fathers "a bunch of crackpots" and I ask for you to illustrate where I said that, you start name calling, dodge the question (again) and fling up a bunch of quotes that are totally irrelevent to the question - for no apparent reason.

It's getting pretty obvious that your statements aren't actually founded on anything but knee-jerk emotional reactions.

 

I realize as an 0311, reading compression was not a MOS criteria, but that is not what I said. I threatened anyone that tries to take my firearm in absence of a change in the Constitution.