"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Phoebe Bump, Dec 21, 2015.

  1. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes we definitely need background checks for online purchases. Oh wait you can't just buy a gun off the internet. Moot point.

    Yes we definitely need background checks for gun shows. Oh wait all FFLs are already required to do that. Or do you mean private sales? Didn't Washington or somewhere recently pass a law for that about a year ago? How's that going? Oh yeah, zero prosecutions in over a year.

    You guys keep up the worthless proposals for stuff that already exists, or that isn't a problem. The rest of us will try to focus on the 70% of criminals that keep shooting people over and over.
     
  2. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,211
    Likes Received:
    14,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    AKA, the vast majority of Americans.

    As I had noted, the progress is actually quite modest.

     
  3. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Gun lovers cannot be a militia if they have not been authorized their own Colors, Standards, and Banners; they can Only be a Posse.

     
  4. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    danielpalos is wrong as usual. The militia is the whole people.
     
  5. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, but Only well regulated militia of the whole People is declared necessary to the security of a free State.
     
  6. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If by modest you mean: did nothing, I agree.
     
  7. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Only infidels, protestants, renegades, and resisters claim I am wrong.
     
  8. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,211
    Likes Received:
    14,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to have missed including sellers at gun shows or online who don’t register as licensed dealers, more funding for mental health treatment and increased opportunities for the reporting of mental illness to the background-check system, increasing the number of FBI staff processing background checks in an effort to make the process quicker, increasing the number of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents and investigators, all aimed at closing loopholes and better enforcing existing laws.

    If by "did nothing", you mean "made sensible, albeit modest improvements," I agree.
     
  9. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those who sell guns to criminals will not register as licensed dealers and will continue to do so.

    There was no increase in mental health treatment opportunities, and this would have nothing to do with it if there were.

    Mental illness reporting will be better? NICS isn't even catching criminal histories, let alone HIPPA protected mental health issues.

    All this effort to address 2% of the problem.

    If we addressed the 70% of the repeat violent criminals in this country with the same gusto, we might actually get somewhere.
     
  10. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    EVERYBODY up to, and including the United States Supreme Court, have told you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
     
  11. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is wrong with you that you don't comprehend simple English? The Right that is protected is the Right to keep and bear Arms. The Second Amendment is not about protecting the militia from some imaginary infringement. I've given you cite after cite that discredits your persistent posting of misinformation.
    A well regulated militia protects the Right of the people against infringement.
     
  12. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes; they are part of the nine hundred ninety-nine.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I understand English better than You, apparently since I don't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment; Only well regulated militia of the whole People is declared necessary to the security of a free State.

    And, here is the reason Only well regulated militia of the whole People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    It really is that simple, except for gun lovers, the Right, and the nine hundred ninety-nine.
     
  13. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only do you NOT understand English, your constant use of this term about appeal to ignorance has no meaning whatsoever. Look dude, we are a forgiving bunch. I'm sorry that we cannot appeal to your ignorance of the law.

    If you think the militia can't be infringed on, wait until you have a tyrant in power or are overwhelmed by a foreign force. The Bill of Rights don't have squat to do with guaranteeing that a militia cannot be infringed upon. The clear use of the language states in unequivocal words the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. So, what part of that are you ignorant of? What part of that don't you understand?
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Simply projecting only means you don't understand English any better and understand worse than I do. I don't resort to fallacy as often as you do simply due to my better understanding of the language.

    The militia only may not be Infringed when involved with the security of a free State. That is what our Second Amendment means.

    We have a First Amendment that secures petitions for redress of grievances.

    y'all merely are not that bright.
     
  15. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have any new material or are we to be cursed by you not wanting people to appeal to your ignorance of the law?
     
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You only feel it is a "curse" because you have Only fallacy to work with. You have still not rebutted the rules of construction. Simple rejection is not refutation.

    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.

    Here are the rules of construction: There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

    What does the first clause mean, and how are you making it "conspire" to some common end with the second clause?

    Only the nine hundred ninety-nine resort to fallacy for their Cause as a custom, and habit, until it is indistinguishable from a moral.
     
  17. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you believe the interpretation that existed since the ratification of our federal Constitution, is wrong?
     
  19. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Speaking of 'hiding behind'.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why? Our Second Amendment tells us what is necessary.
     
  21. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the judge is wrong. The only way for a nation to remain free is for the citizens to be armed. I see no other way of translating this very logical fact. Government is for the people, we are not the governments subjects. Illogical thinking like that (government is our master) is why we are slowly collapsing.
     
  22. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok. Why do you believe Persons are Only free due to the second clause of our Second Amendment and not State Constitutions that actually recognize and secure natural and civil rights, including the natural and civil right to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms, for defense of self and property?
     
  23. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If people cannot defend themselves against a tyrannical government or at least represent a deterrent for tyranny, you will slowly lose all those other rights. There is a reason why the USA has never been attacked by a foreign invasion as well. Most countries know better. Take away gun rights as the likes of Sanders, and Clinton (also Bush) want and things in this country will be much worse than Detroit and the south side of Chicago. That is what a disarmed society looks like.
     
  24. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you know that non sequiturs can be diversions and are usually considered fallacies.

    Why do you believe Persons cannot defend themselves, when State Constitutions recognize and secure natural and civil rights, including the natural and civil right to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms, for defense of self and property?
     
  25. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think as I said that if citizens lose their gun rights (and they are being whittled away as we speak), the rest of the rights you perceive to exist will become a fallacy.
     

Share This Page