The right to keep and bear arms.

[The Horn]

J Sanford 108 , the second amendment had a totally different meaning at the time of the founders than it does today . According to them, it referred to MILITIAS . We don't need militias today .
Our so-called "militias" today are nothing but lunatic paranoid right-wing extremist groups .
The second amendment has been obsolete for over 200 years . This does not mean the government should confiscate everybody's guns .
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries we didn't have lots of criminals or lunatics who went around killing people with . But we do today . This is why America is in such desperate need of strong gun control laws . But the greedy, callous bastards who run the NRA don't want anything to interfere with gun profits . And they have virtually the entire Repugnican party in their pay .

 

[Right Divider]

J Sanford 108 , the second amendment had a totally different meaning at the time of the founders than it does today . According to them, it referred to MILITIAS . We don't need militias today .
Our so-called "militias" today are nothing but lunatic paranoid right-wing extremist groups .
The second amendment has been obsolete for over 200 years . This does not mean the government should confiscate everybody's guns .
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries we didn't have lots of criminals or lunatics who went around killing people with . But we do today . This is why America is in such desperate need of strong gun control laws . But the greedy, callous bastards who run the NRA don't want anything to interfere with gun profits . And they have virtually the entire Repugnican party in their pay .

Criminals and lunatics don't follow the law.

 

[jsanford108]

J Sanford 108 , the second amendment had a totally different meaning at the time of the founders than it does today . According to them, it referred to MILITIAS . We don't need militias today .

So, at no point will the government become tyrannical and try and take away people's rights? Like the second amendment or free speech, etc?

Let us also examine words of various founders on the issue.

Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824: The Constitution of most of our stated (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1744-1776: The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined no determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

George Mason, Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 17878: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Yes. Seems like they had no grasp on how "obsolete" their laws would be.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries we didn't have lots of criminals or lunatics who went around killing people with .

Right. We just had less laws, and a tyrannical government to fight against.

But we do today . This is why America is in such desperate need of strong gun control laws . But the greedy, callous bastards who run the NRA don't want anything to interfere with gun profits . And they have virtually the entire Repugnican party in their pay .

Let us examine actual statistics, then.

Turkey: established gun control laws in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians exterminated. They had no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

Soviet Union: established gun control laws in 1929. 20 million dissidents rounded up and exterminated. No guns to protect themselves or form a militia. (This also shows restrictions on free speech, another leftist agenda)

Germany: established gun control laws in 1938. From 1948 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

China: established gun control laws in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia (also, free speech restrictions).

Guatemala: established gun control laws in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

Uganda: established gun control laws in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

Cambodia: established gun control laws in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated" people exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

 

[Nihilo]

Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824: The Constitution of most of our stated (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1744-1776: The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined no determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

George Mason, Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 17878: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Good quotes.

 

[The Horn]

Please tell me, how many guns have been confiscated by the Democratic party so far over the years, and especially under the hated "gun grabber " Obama? Zip. Nada . Zilch. Bupkis. Not single one . The democrats have never had any intention of taking guns arbitrarily from anyone .
All they want are REASONABLE laws regulating guns for safety .Such laws would not cause a single gun to be "grabbed " from any law-abiding,peaceful US citizen. They wouldn't prevent all senseless gun violence , but they COULD reduce this significantly if the NRA and their paid stooges in the Republican party didn't block them .

 

[jsanford108]

Okay, Horn dog, so rather than admit you were wrong about the founding fathers / second amendment being obsolete, you just switched points. But that is okay. I will just keep replying with facts.

Please tell me, how many guns have been confiscated by the Democratic party so far over the years, and especially under the hated "gun grabber " Obama? Zip. Nada . Zilch. Bupkis. Not single one . The democrats have never had any intention of taking guns arbitrarily from anyone .
All they want are REASONABLE laws regulating guns for safety .Such laws would not cause a single gun to be "grabbed " from any law-abiding,peaceful US citizen. They wouldn't prevent all senseless gun violence , but they COULD reduce this significantly if the NRA and their paid stooges in the Republican party didn't block them .

The NRA gave $838,215 to congress in 2016. This was in varying forms of payment (individual payments, PACs). That is a lot of money. But anti-gun legislation lobbyists gave $1,392,415, also in varying forms of payment (individual payments, PACs). The largest of these anti-gun lobbyists (Everytown for Gun Safety) gave over $910,000. That is more than the NRA gave in total.

Please tell me, how many guns have been confiscated by the Democratic party so far over the years, and especially under the hated "gun grabber " Obama? Zip. Nada . Zilch. Bupkis. Not single one . The democrats have never had any intention of taking guns arbitrarily from anyone .

It isn't about if they did it. Legislation lasts much longer than a presidency. It isn't fear of the person in congress or the white house, it is about the legislation that they push. Common sense law here.

All they want are REASONABLE laws regulating guns for safety .

Please, educate us. What reasonable laws, regulating guns for safety, do the liberals want?

What reasonable laws do you suggest, as well?

 

[Right Divider]

Please, educate us. What reasonable laws, regulating guns for safety, do the liberals want?

What reasonable laws do you suggest, as well?

They want laws that criminals and lunatics will obey. :doh:

 

[The Horn]

Right Divider, stricter laws for gun control wouldn't prevent all gun violence in America, but they could reduce it a lot . But the NRA is just a bunch of greedy bastards in the pay of the gun industry . They have blocked gun control for decades and have the GOP in their pay .
The gun industry doesn't want its profits reduced , so they block gun control. They couldn't care less if thousands of America die every year needlessly .
We have all kinds of rules requiring safety standards for all kinds of products . If we didn't have them, an enormous number of people would die or be seriously hurt . So why can;t we have them for guns ? This would not be "confiscation ".
Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right. If you want to own guns, you should be required to be trained how to use and store them safely . What is so awful about this >
If we didn't require people to have driver's licenses , it would cause an enormous number of accidents and fatalities . WE already have a lot of fatalities and accidents . WE don't need even more caused by people who are not fit to drive . If you are blind or your eyesight is too poor to drive, you shouldn't be driving a car .

 

[Right Divider]

Right Divider, stricter laws for gun control wouldn't prevent all gun violence in America, but they could reduce it a lot .

Wild speculation is not fact.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.

Treason.

 

[jsanford108]

.
The gun industry doesn't want its profits reduced , so they block gun control. They couldn't care less if thousands of America die every year needlessly .

I have already shown that there are only over 500 accidental deaths due to gun misuse. So, by saying "thousands," you are promoting a falsehood.

Isn't all death, as a result of accident or evil intent, "needless?" If so, then the fact of cars killing more than guns should logically make you call for stricter car laws.

We have all kinds of rules requiring safety standards for all kinds of products . If we didn't have them, an enormous number of people would die or be seriously hurt . So why can;t we have them for guns ? This would not be "confiscation ".

Please, tell us what these regulations would be.

To continue suggesting something as vague as "safety" regulations is the issue. Just be specific. Give us these ideas of you and your liberal representatives.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right. If you want to own guns, you should be required to be trained how to use and store them safely . What is so awful about this?

Too bad that it is a right. As I said before; so important of one that the founding fathers made it the second right. Literally, it is number 2.

If we didn't require people to have driver's licenses , it would cause an enormous number of accidents and fatalities . WE already have a lot of fatalities and accidents . WE don't need even more caused by people who are not fit to drive . If you are blind or your eyesight is too poor to drive, you shouldn't be driving a car .

This proves the illogical nature of your argument. If cars are so highly regulated, why are cars the number one cause of fatalities? Your whole argument is predicated on more regulations equating in less death as a result of misuse, yet cars produce more death and have more regulations.

Therefore, logically, your argument is unsound, as the causation that it describes is false.

Also, you know it is illegal to commit murder, right? As is modifying any firearm to fully automatic capabilities. Yet, both of these happen. Why? There are laws and regulations for these. The logical answer is that people will act against the law. We call them criminals. Literally, all except around 500 deaths per year, involving guns, are the result of criminals not obeying laws and regulations.

Your whole argument is illogical and voided by facts.



Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[The Horn]

Yes, thousands of people die in car accidents every year . But if we didn't require people to have licenses or require people to wear seat belts and have other regulations, the numbers of people who died or were seriously injured or permanently disabled would be much,much larger than they are now . Get my point ?

 

[Interplanner]

A much-needed component to solving the type of terrorism seen last week NYC is the type in modern Israel where there is the general knowledge on the street that there are plenty of trained plainclothes respondents to acts of terrorism, and they are good shots.

The US would do well to add this to all other methods. I'm reminded of Macy's dealing with a raft of theft one year. They simply posted one day that the mannikins were now equipped with cameras and provided a live feed to prove that at least one was. Shoplifting dropped very quickly.

The government should announce the deployment of thousands of plainclothes respondents.

 

[Nihilo]

So, at no point will the government become tyrannical and try and take away people's rights?

The right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is a civil right, a human right. It's a basic human right. A basic civil right. All the world infringes our RKBA.

Let us also examine words of various founders on the issue.

Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824: The Constitution of most of our stated (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1744-1776: The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined no determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

George Mason, Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 17878: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

The founders believed in the RKBA. They believed that humans possess, by virtue of being a law abiding person, the right to own and to carry military and police, standard issue weaponry. This includes standard sidearms and selective fire assault rifles and carbines, and it does not include sawed off shotguns. You'll note that at no point do they talk about laws that grant people the RKBA. The Second Amendment forbids laws that infringe the RKBA, and certain mentally handicapped people do not possess the RKBA, and neither do drunks.

Yes. Seems like they had no grasp on how "obsolete" their laws would be.


Right. We just had less laws, and a tyrannical government to fight against.

Let us examine actual statistics, then.

Turkey: established gun control laws in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians exterminated. They had no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

Soviet Union: established gun control laws in 1929. 20 million dissidents rounded up and exterminated. No guns to protect themselves or form a militia. (This also shows restrictions on free speech, another leftist agenda)

Germany: established gun control laws in 1938. From 1948 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

China: established gun control laws in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia (also, free speech restrictions).

Guatemala: established gun control laws in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

Uganda: established gun control laws in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

Cambodia: established gun control laws in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated" people exterminated. Once again, no guns to protect themselves or form a militia.

There were mass shootings during Prohibition, and the first infringements upon the RKBA in America happened because of the organized crime that grew like weeds in the fertile soil of Prohibition. These terrorists weren't trying to attack our RKBA, but nonetheless they did. This Paddock psychopath too, he was a terrorist, taking aim at our RKBA. Those 58 innocent victims have died in vain if we cave in to this terrorism, yet again, but gun-grabbing anti's have flipped the script, and accuse those defending the RKBA, of caving in to the NRA's influence. :doh:

 

[jsanford108]

Yes, thousands of people die in car accidents every year . But if we didn't require people to have licenses or require people to wear seat belts and have other regulations, the numbers of people who died or were seriously injured or permanently disabled would be much,much larger than they are now . Get my point ?

I have understood your point this entire time. I am just pointing out that it is illogical.

Your first point was that the second amendment was obsolete because it wasn't intend by the founding fathers in the capacity that modern gun activists interpret it; Proved that wrong with actual quotes from the founding fathers, thus making your point false.

You said that the NRA blocks gun regulations via paying the GOP; I demonstrated that anti-gun activists pay more to congress than the NRA does, thus showing that point as having no weight.

You said that toddlers kill more than terrorists; I showed that the total of accidental deaths per year is barely over 500, which includes all ages. This disproved that point.

You claim that more regulations will mean more safety, thus less "needless" death; I pointed out that cars related deaths outnumber gun deaths, substantially. Cars, as claimed by you, are highly regulated. Yet, I point out that they are still the highest cause of death. So, logically, more regulations does not mean less death.

The whole issue with suggesting regulations is that criminals do not care about them. Murder is already illegal! Yet, criminals are murdering. It is illegal for criminals to have guns. Yet, they are obtaining them through illegal channels. Criminals do not care about regulations. If anything, they want guns to be so highly regulated that they can stand unopposed in a conflict.

Thus far, any time you have made a point, it has been demonstrated as false. But you just keep changing out arguments. "The founding fathers....second amendment is obsolete!" Proven wrong. "NRA funding to GOP blocks progress!" Proven wrong. "More regulations means safety!" Proven wrong. At no point have you admitting to being wrong; you just change arguments, persisting in claiming that more laws and regulations are the answer.

So please, if you have even the slightest suggestion of a non-existent regulation or law, tell us.

(Also, are you also calling for regulations on Islamic immigration? Because they are openly vocal about the destruction of the west, and murdering Americans.)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL