Sandy Hook- It's the guns fault, it's always the guns fault.

Who said any such garbage. I was just pointing out that the odds of being killed by a gun were greatly inflated and there are numerous ways we can die or be killed which are far greater than guns.

We need to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill any anyone else predisposed to murder someone with a gun. I don't know how to do that without violating all sorts of constitutional guarantees. In the mean time, there are over three hundred million guns in the and climbing. A total ban on guns will result law abiding citizens giving up their guns and the law breakers keeping theirs. That is a situation I want desperately to avoid. I live in a rural area far away from law enforcement. I do not want to try to defend my wife and myself without a gun.

 

The ruling is about advertising.

 

My words are directly above, not on your keyboard.

My words specifically say what the founders meant by using "Regulated Militia." Your words twisted what the founders said. The founders did not say that the Militia's tools for securing a free State should be "Regulated." Had the founders meant to restrict the tools used by the militia for the purpose of maintaining and securing a free State, they would never have followed those express words with "Shall Not Be Infringed." The presupposition was "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [comma] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice that both the predicate and the subject and how the presupposition leads to the supposition which is separated by a comma. It is one fluid statement made by the founders.

Your problem here is not with Guns. Your problem here is a lack of understand about how the English Language is structured. They hung the supposition, suspending it in mid sentence just for people like you, so that it could never be concluded that restricting the Militia was ever their original intent.

This is WHY there is so much dumbing down having taken place in our country today. Every clearly written sentence should have both a Subject and a Predicate. They made a Declarative statement and suspended the supposition between the pre-supposition (like splitting an atom) in a very tactful way, just to make things abundantly clear. Yet, you still failed to read it the way it was written. All of you Extra-Constitutionalist do that at the drop of a hat, whenever you want to shred the Constitution at some Amendment you don't like.

You can't make this up.

 

Agreed, they make no sense on this issue.

Liberals, need to watch this over and over and over again until they finally get it. In the Liberal Mind, there is NO United States Constitution - serving any purpose they don't like. Thus, they ignore it and in their own minds they bend it to force a new reality they invented by changing the rules midstream. Don't acknowledge the rules and you can bend anything to your will.

Or, said another way, let's go out and randomly start messing with the equations for the Strong Force, Weak Force, Gravity and Electromagnetism. Hell, why not. It would be fun! We could obliterate the very fabric of our Universe and ourselves at the same time and then just blame it on "progress." Yeah, that's the ticket. "Progress."

Funny.

 

No, you don't make any sense, nor do you retain context when you reply.

 

So it's impossible.

 

There were 38,658 firearms deaths in the USA in 2016.That is more than 100 per day.

 

I never said the word "regulated" referenced anything but the militia. So it's not me with the comprehension problem.

So you were asked, what well regulated militia are you in?

 

We are ALL part of the "Militia" according to what Militia meant in 1775 and what it means to the preservation of the State. Just like they did not use word like "Nation," or "Country," they were working from a frame of reference where "State" meant the entire "Country" and "Militia" meant YOU and ME, pal.

That's what it boils down to if the crap hits the fan. If China, decided to launch a land invasion on US soil tomorrow morning at 0350 hrs, our sworn Military would respond without question. However, do you really think our Military has the capacity to defend every Street in our Nation? No my dear friend, that duty would come down to you. Oh, wait a minute. You don't want guns around you in your neighborhood. Ooops, there goes the neighborhood, then.

It does not mean that you will win the battle against trained Chinese Military Invaders (though I hope you would for the nation's sake). It means that as a member of the Non-Regular Militia, circumstances beyond your control have caused you to fight to maintain "a free State." How the hell can you even begin to fight, when you refuse to put a gun in your hands. Speak Mandarin, yet? Better brush up!

Other scenario could very well be a US Government gone completely rogue. It is a very nasty contemplation, but the founders had already fought a war against a government that was once "friendly." It is not nice to think about, but it is within the realm of possibility. So, what would you do? Would you lay down and surrender to the US Dictatorship and its Military? Now, quite frankly as a practical matter, I don't know of a single, solitary Man or Woman in our Military (personally) who would EVER obey such orders. But, that is precisely what the Founders had in mind as well.

They cared about preserving the State for the People. They set into law the provision for The People, to necessarily secure (maintain) a Free State. They specifically set into motion the law that The People's right to keep and bear Arms should not be infringed. They clearly told you this and they did so without equivocation and with none of the ambiguity that Liberals always wish to drag into this conversation. This is not a debate. The Founders did not write anything that was debatable. Those who have wanted to disarm the American People, have created a debatable false presupposition out of whole clothe.

Watch this video very carefully and be very worried about what you see taking place here:



This was Kafkaesque at minimum. This was the State of California going Ultra Rogue. This was nightmarish. Now, imagine this taking place along one of the Amendments that YOU happen to like, uphold and appreciate. How about the 1st Amendment? How long do you think it will take before your Government starts sending Agents to your doorstep for comments you made either in public directly or online? This is not a joke. This is YOUR future as a US Citizen. This is YOUR Constitution being shredded right before your very eyes.

The 2nd Amendment today. The 1st Amendment tomorrow. Where does it end? You tell me. Where?

 

And, you were told. But, because you don't read very well, you re-ask a question that has already been clearly answered in spades.

 

You're misreading the 2nd amendment.

The text:
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.

The way it should be read is, Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

They were stating that the last line of defense for the security of a free state is a well regulated militia. And since the militia is made up of everyday common citizens, then all of those everyday common citizens should be well-armed in order to make that defense.

 

Well, uhhhh....

so if I'm in the Militia, it's my constitutional right, as it is anyone's, to go buy an AR-15, or any other weapon/arms, a bomb, or a grenade, or whatever, without any infringing....

and I can load it up, and go walking down the street with it, anytime, anywhere. No rules, no regulations, no background checks....nothing. I'm just exercising my rights, protecting myself, and having fun.

No infringement at all by anyone.

Any cop who stops me, or anyone else....they are infringing my Constitutional rights.

This is how it should be and any infringement at all goes against the Constitution.

Right?

 

The suicides are meaningless to this discussion so discount those

 

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

 

I don't know how to do it.

 

In the US there were 37,133 deaths by vehicle in 2017. 3,094 per month. 103 per day.

Let's ban all vehicles. Let's just go for it and save lives. Of course, the Oil, Auto Manufacturing and Auto Insurance lobbies in DC would have a collective baby. It would look like a monster and they would proclaim that it deserves federal funded daycare subsidies, but life would go on without automobiles. In fact, without automobiles we'd save about 37,133 lives per year. A worthy cause, no.

Nah, let's just ban Firearms instead. We all know that Firearms sprout legs, walk out the door to kill and maim people. So, we've definitely got to get rid of the Firearms:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." ​

Please stop telling me that all Liberals want is to "regulate" Firearms in America. That's patently false. They want an "Outright Ban." They want to "Pick Up Every One Of Them." They want you to "Turn Them All In." Stop lying to me by telling me that all you desire is more "regulation." Start telling the truth like your leader in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein, and admit that you want Firearms gone. Period. And, if you think she would stop at just so-called "Assault Weapons" then you are sadly mistaken. Once they got the erroneously defined "Assault Weapons" they'd then come after your Non-Assault Weapons as well.

 

It can't be done.

All laws and rules regarding all arms/weapons are unconstitutional. No infringing.

The end.

 

Is your mortgage loan a living contract? What if your circumstances change? Can you just inform the bank you will be paying less interest on the balance?

 

Suicides are not meaningless,if the gun was not so convenient many of them would never occur.And most are white males.

 

It is the militia not the guns that are to be regulated and that means practiced with rifles and trained militarily in the parlance of that day.

 

Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world an no guns.

 

For running a stop light as detected by an intersection camera, they arrest the car, not the driver, for instance.

One minor clarification: there have been no confirmed deaths or confirmed physiological health problems from second hand smoke.

 

Canada has almost the exact same suicide rate as the US. They just choose other methods as would most who commit suicide with guns in the US.

 

Ah, yes. Politico and Propaganda made fresh everyday, no doubt.

It is stuff like this that I can't take seriously from Propagando:


Above, earlier in the hit piece on the 2nd Amendment and the NRA, the author clearly says the following:



The author over at Politicon, goes from "just one sentence" to gee, I don't know what the hell that one sentence means! You can't make this stuff up. But, here is where the author shows their true colors:



A) On the one hand the author uses practical assumptions made during the 18th century that "bear arms" was meant for military activities.
B) On the other hand the author relies on there not being "one single word" that the Founder's meant individuals should keep and bear arms.

So, the author injects his own interpretation (military activities only) when he feels like it, and then relies strictly on the text of the Constitution (no right of the individual) when it suits their purpose. How convenient. I'm pretty sure this analysis was missed on purpose before it was posted in this thread, however. This author is not being genuine on any front. Even the Title of the hit piece is fraudulent: How The NRA Rewrote The Second Amendment. The NRA did not exist when the 2nd was penned, nor has the 2nd been further amended since being originally adopted.

This is not good research. It is not fair. It is not balanced. It is a hit piece. Pure and simple. Accept it for what it is and then move on. Hanging your hat on something like this only demonstrates the weak argument that Liberals have with respect to why they cannot handle "Shall Not Be Infringed." Creating a false presupposition (the founders were only talking about the Military Activities) has already been debunked with other writings from the Founders at the time. Their concerns were that The People, not be overrun by an overzealous BIG government. It really is just that simple.

To wit, take a look at who is pressing the issue of Gun Control. The BIG Federal Government. Coincidence? Hardly. It is precisely what the Founders predicted, feared and planned for by way of "Shall Not Be Infringed." Case in point.

 

What does that have to do with the Constitution being a living document?