NRA and Right Wing Talking About Breaking Our Constitution

[Anti-Party]

You wouldn't have to worry if you lived in Texas. Most people have guns and carry them.

Yes, we're really a lot safer here in Texas.

I agree with stopping "Gun Free Zones". But in order for that to happen the Right Wing has to realize "Gun Control Discussion" doesn't just mean "all the guns will be taken away and Obama will kill us all". It means give and take on laws. Open up gun free zones and debate which are necessary. I still think government buildings and bars should be gun free, but that is just me.

 

[Liberty]

I never critisized video games, but yes, we should give up AmericasArmy video game. It's costing taxpayers millions..

I was thinking all violent video games. Anything with a gun(s).

 

[Anti-Party]

I translate it as; everyone(adults) should own assault rifles in case the government becomes a tyrant, and forgets its place.

I love where this thread is going. I truely do. My point is being proven throughly. The Right Wing and NRA crazies are proving they don't have a clue what the 2nd Amendment actually says and means. Thanks.

 

[sPzAbt505]

You win most uninformed citizen of the year award. You are literally saying that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the militia.

Read what I wrote very carefully. If you do, there's a chance you'll understand how what I said is not what you responded to.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. As such, exercise of the right protected by the 2nd has nothing to do with the militia, and so any argument that the right to arms must be "well regulated" is unsound.

You saying a ban on large capacity would do nothing because they are already in circulation is uninformed as well. You clearly don't know the difference between production and stopped production. More in circulation means higher ability to get these.

You fail to understand that banning productoin does not meaningfully hinder anyone in getting them, and so banning them is useless.
Were you alive during the 1994 AWB? Do you know how access to magazines was affected by it?
It wasn't - I bought as many as I wanted as often as I wanted.
There is no substance to your belief that banning magazines will matter; you either fail to recognize this and refuse to even try, or you fully understand this, but do not care.

Furthermore, I never said to gun grab so me not defining "military style weaponry" incorrectly in your blind bias eyes does not matter.

The term was "military grade". You brought up "military grade" weapons, and so their discussion is fair game.
However, you don't know what a "military grade" weapon is, and so you aren't able to discuss them intelligently.

I never said anything about any specific shooting such as Newtown either.

You fail to understand that Newtown is just an example -- none of your "common sense gun contorl" will prevent a mass shooting anywhere.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The right of the fucking PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*

*Note the choice of words - "infringed," versus denied or some sort of term in which guns could be legal, but substantially limited.

 

[sPzAbt505]

The right of the fucking PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*
*Note the choice of words - "infringed," versus denied or some sort of term in which guns could be legal, but substantially limited.

Yes. Any restriction on the exercise of any right not inherent to that right is an infringement.

 

[Anti-Party]

Read what I wrote very carefully. If you do, there's a chance you'll understand how what I said is not what you responded to.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. As such, exercise of the right protected by the 2nd has nothing to do with the militia, and so any argument that the right to arms must be "well regulated" is unsound.


You fail to understand that banning productoin does not meaningfully hinder anyone in getting them, and so banning them is useless.
Were you alive during the 1994 AWB? Do you know how access to magazines was affected by it?
It wasn't - I bought as many as I wanted as often as I wanted.
There is no substance to your belief that banning magazines will matter; you either fail to recognize this and refuse to even try, or you fully understand this, but do not care.


The term was "military grade". You brought up "military grade" weapons, and so their discussion is fair game.
However, you don't know what a "military grade" weapon is, and so you aren't able to discuss them intelligently.


You fail to understand that Newtown is just an example -- none of your "common sense gun contorl" will prevent a mass shooting anywhere.

You shouldn't spend so much typing. I only read to "militia" again which you clearly didn't learn the definition of even after I told you to look it up. We the people are the militia. Not a particular group in the military, though the definition could be used for either. So one of two things;

A) The 2nd Amendment is only protecting militarys right to bear arms and doesn't protect the citizens right to bear arms.
B) Militia is defined as all the people in America who bear arms in the case we need them to protect us from dirty government or other nations that set foot on our soil.

Do you understand that yet? Do I have to tyyyyppppeee sllllowweerrr?

 

[Anti-Party]

The right of the fucking PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*

*Note the choice of words - "infringed," versus denied or some sort of term in which guns could be legal, but substantially limited.

Lowering magazine capacity and better background checks does not infringe your right to bear arms....

 

[Anti-Party]

Yes. Any restriction on the exercise of any right not inherent to that right is an infringement.

The 2nd Amendment you don't dare translate says differently.

 

[Anti-Party]

AGAIN

A well regulated Militia(THE CITIZENS), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Liberty]

I love where this thread is going. I truely do. My point is being proven throughly. The Right Wing and NRA crazies are proving they don't have a clue what the 2nd Amendment actually says and means. Thanks.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
Thomas Jeffersons

But what the heck. You're just to smart.

 

[Anti-Party]

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
Thomas Jeffersons

But what the heck. You're just to smart.

I assume by smart you mean the ability to agree with that quote, agree with the Constitution and spell the word "too" properly then yea. I'm pretty smart.

 

[sPzAbt505]

You shouldn't spend so much typing. I only read to "militia" again which you clearly didn't learn the definition of even after I told you to look it up. We the people are the militia. Not a particular group in the military, though the definition could be used for either. So one of two things;

As The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, you present a false dichotomy.

I thusly accept your concession of all the other points brought up in the discussion.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You don't know what "translate" means either do you. No where in that amendment does it say anything anywhere NEAR what you just typed. "Any and all" what word translates to that? "Government could use to oppress them" what words translated to that?

I'm really starting to worry about these people..

you asked for a translation. I gave you mine. The fact that you don't like it or agree with it is irrelevant. Now, if you were asking for definitions of some of the words, then you should have asked for that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I agree with stopping "Gun Free Zones". But in order for that to happen the Right Wing has to realize "Gun Control Discussion" doesn't just mean "all the guns will be taken away and Obama will kill us all". It means give and take on laws. Open up gun free zones and debate which are necessary. I still think government buildings and bars should be gun free, but that is just me.

is there somewhere in the constitution that tells me I need to compromise on my rights?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I love where this thread is going. I truely do. My point is being proven throughly. The Right Wing and NRA crazies are proving they don't have a clue what the 2nd Amendment actually says and means. Thanks.

It is the height of stupidity to believe that the framers wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect the right of a standing army to bear arms after they had just fought a war for independence from a standing army.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Lowering magazine capacity and better background checks does not infringe your right to bear arms....

yes it does.

 

[Anti-Party]

As The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, you present a false dichotomy.

I thusly accept your concession of all the other points brought up in the discussion.

So your breakdown of "Well regulated Militia" is "individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.

You are simply changing the constitutional words into something they are not even close to. It's a pathetic attept to win an argument especially since you are pissing on the 2nd amendment in your attempt to make a valid point. And using the word "thusly" will not make you sound smart kiddo.

 

[Anti-Party]

you asked for a translation. I gave you mine. The fact that you don't like it or agree with it is irrelevant. Now, if you were asking for definitions of some of the words, then you should have asked for that.

What the hell do you think a translation is. Translating words not used much anymore or giving your opinion on what the 2nd amendment means.

 

[Anti-Party]

It is the height of stupidity to believe that the framers wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect the right of a standing army to bear arms after they had just fought a war for independence from a standing army.

You keep trying to make the argument that you know exactly what the founders were thinking at that point in time but you won't challenge the definition of the 2nd Amendment.

Look, you try to come off as being a constitutional guy along with some of these other clowns. But the fact is the exact wording of the constitution says we need gun regulation and you all are frustrated that you were fed lies by Fox News.