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

why would they do that, Person on the Right; they did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution.

 

So lets ask again. Were there holes in my argument or not? Its a yes or no.

 

Nope, Nemo is right.

 

No he isn't. Without the second amendment, the government could outright ban the ownership of any weapon capable of firing a projectile.

The 2nd secures the right to own them.

 

Please read the constitution and the federalist papers then post. Here I'll start you out with my favorite section of federalist #84

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

 

I'll go with actual constitutional law and case precedent.

The District of Columbia had a ban on handguns. The case went to court and the government lost because the second amendment grants citizens the right to keep and bear arms, therefore the government can't ban them. If there wasn't a 2nd amendment, heller would have lost.

Dc v heller.

 

That is a false argument, your saying that because the constitution has been violated then it never meant what it said.

 

This doesn't make any sense.

 

I guess it wouldn't to you.

When you got raped does that mean you were always gay?

 

This makes even less sense and is even dumber than your previous post.

Maybe try addressing my post this time?

 

There is no appeal to ignorance of the legal fact that Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

if gun ownership in itself was such a horrible thing, more gun owners would be committing crimes with them.

but the vast majority of gun crimes are NOT committed by legal gun owners, aka folks who actually purchased firearms legally.

most guns were stolen, borrowed, or illegally purchased through straw purchases or criminal FFLs.

 

Dudes, that should be a States' rights issue. The problem is, gun lovers' Own representatives to government elected, don't Trust them with their Own Arms in public venues.

Some on the left Know our representatives elected have first dibs on the militia of the United States.

 

Heller centered on the 14th amendment, yes the 2nd was a factor, but the 14th was key. The 14th came after the 2nd ya know.

Try reading the Heller majority opinion.

It also relied on US v Miller, which was a previous rape.

 

The title of this thread is funny. We have had the RTKBA since inception and became one of the greatest nations in the world. Looks like it didn't hurt us a bit.

 

Lol, centered on the 14th amendment?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Want to count how many times the 2nd A is mentioned and how many times the 14th is?

Lol

- - - Updated - - -

Troll somewhere else please. Your statements have been debunked every time you've made them

 

That's not true. That part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is only an explanatory clause. The purpose was to delineate the proper role and function of the State with respect to the U.S. government, and if anything strengthens State rights against federal encroachment. At that time, ownership of guns by the people was very much intertwined with the defense and jurisdictional sovereignty of the State. Federal control over the first would have been tantamount to an attack on the latter. The Bill of Rights was as much about State rights as it was individual rights of the people. In fact, the Bill of Rights originally was only meant to be a limitation on the proper Powers of the federal government, not the individual States. The drafters of the Constitution understood the best way to put checks on Power was to divide it.

That this explanatory clause was not intended to detract in any way from the right of the people declared in the subsequent part of the Amendment is clear if one looks back at the prior drafts of this particular Amendment, before it took its final form and was ratified.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second...Earlier_proposals_and_drafts_of_the_Amendment

It may be surprising, but one the original reasons for this Amendment was to prevent people from being drawn into military service based on the fact they owned a gun. At that time, those conscripted into the Militia often had to supply their own clothes and weapon.

 

I would hang out with Ogres simply because the are funner to argue with and actually have better arguments; but, this is the best the right can muster on any notice.

 

This well-regulated Militia, in 1787, was made up of The People aka the public aka the average citizen.

also, keep in mind, under current Federal law, The Militia includes all able bodied American males from age 18 to 45.

"The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia."

 

You may need to start from the beginning. What is our Second Article of Amendment about?

 

protecting the right of the various Militias to defend the security and freedom of the USA.

under current Federal law, all men age 18-45 are part of the reserve Militia and can be called up by the President to serve their country.

 

This is also a State's right:

 

you only reinforced my point.

thanks.

 

It's a culture problem, not a gun problem. The pertinent question is what the effect of anti-gun policies would be, not whether we can say there's some badness associated with guns. Remember alcohol prohibition. Just because something is bad doesn't mean banning it helps.

You think banning guns would prevent something like that? Banning guns doesn't magically rid the country of guns - it just means the only people with guns are those who would circumvent the law. People who commit mass shootings would fall in the category of those who circumvent the law. I am pro-gun, but mass shootings are far from the best argument against guns.

 

nothing but diversion instead of a "gospel Truth" argument?