How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

you hate government remember stupid bot.



You scream that right out loud like its a great thing.


Our country and its founders did not hate government you fucking lying traitor.


YOU hate government


YOU hate your fellow man is why


YOU need to go live in the fucking wilderness and leave us SANE humans alone.

go fuck off you nut bag hate bot
 
you hate government remember stupid bot.



You scream that right out loud like its a great thing.


Our country and its founders did not hate government you fucking lying traitor.


YOU hate government


YOU hate your fellow man is why


YOU need to go live in the fucking wilderness and leave us SANE humans alone.

go fuck off you nut bag hate bot



It is quite evident who is consumed with hate.

I truly feel sorry for you and sympathize with whatever living creatures have the misfortune of sharing your living space; it must be a horribly demoralizing existence.

Engaging with you is not worth the feeling of bringing myself down to such a low intellectual level . . . I am done with you.
 
see how fucking flawed your thoughts are you stupid fuck.

Yes I hate you


the world hates you


your a fucking brain broken racist evil shit
 
Actually we have.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ployees-are-on-the-terror-watch-list-n2089621

What do you think about Obama employing 72 people at DHS who were on terror watch list?

Did you know Teddy Kennedy was on terror watch list?


Looks like your rabid rightie sources got it wrong AGAIN.

Summary of eRumor:
It’s been reported that 72 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees are on a terrorist watch list.

The Truth:

Claims that 72 DHS employees are on a terrorist watch list are false.

An inspector general report found that 73 airport employees across the country — not DHS employees — had not been properly vetted for possible links to terrorism.
These rumors can be traced back to a Boston Public Radio interview with U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, a Democrat from Massachusetts, on December 1, 2015. When asked why Lynch was one of 47 Democrats who backed a GOP bill to ramp up screenings for Syrian and Iraqi refugees, he answered:

…Back in August, we did an investigation—the inspector General did—of the Department of Homeland Security, and they had 72 individuals that were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the Department of Homeland Security. The director had to resign because of that. Then we went further and did and eight-airport investigation. We had staffers go into eight different airports to test the department of homeland security screening process at major airports. They had a 95 percent failure rate. We had folks—this was a testing exercise, so we had folks going in there with guns on their ankles, and other weapons on their persons, and there was a 95 percent failure rate.

Stephen Lynch’s comment that 72 DHS employees are on a terrorist watch list were immediately picked up by blog sites, and by right-wing blog sites in particular. Lynch’s statement stirred panic because he seemed to assert that people suspected of terrorism could actually be working within the DHS.


We tracked down the inspector general report that Stephen Lynch referenced, and he was flat wrong. The report did not say there were 72 DHS employees on a terrorist watch list.

(Continued)

https://www.truthorfiction.com/72-dhs-employees-on-a-terrorist-watch-list/
 
I
they did not hate government you fucking brain dead lying lump of shit.



They hated being ruled by wealthy fucks.



they wanted a BETTER system that included freedom


they called their new invention he USA.


You hate that invention and say it right out fucking loud.



then you act like that invention doesn't include the constitution.


The constitution is government you fucking evil assed traitor to this nation

They hated themselves? They were the wealthy fucks too.

Do you realize how ignorant your posts are? I don't believe you do, because iall you can seem to post are these foul mouthed ignorant diatribes.
 
Chappaquiddick Teddy: "...So my administrative assistant talked to the Department of Homeland Security and they said there’s some mistake. It happened three more times and finally Secretary Ridge called to apologize on it. It happened even after he called to apologize because they couldn’t — my name was on the list at the airports and with the airlines and the Homeland Security. He couldn’t get my name off the list for a period of weeks."

According to a Washington Post article at the time, Kennedy was repeatedly stopped because his name matched an alias, “T. Kennedy,” used by a suspected terrorist.

Kennedy, however, was never actually on the no-fly list, but a secondary “selectee list.” According to the Department of Homeland Security, individuals on the selectee list “must undergo additional security screening” before boarding their flight. Those on the no-fly list cannot obtain a boarding pass."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...he-fly-list/sfH9Z1JRrvXR3860gedr9J/story.html
 
I

They hated themselves? They were the wealthy fucks too.

Do you realize how ignorant your posts are? I don't believe you do, because iall you can seem to post are these foul mouthed ignorant diatribes.




you lie filled fucking ass doesn't get to rewrite history you fucking traitor to our constitution.


see why saying you hate government is a fucking idiots babble
 
It is clear that the individual ape has no right to bear arms unless in a legal militia. Any fool except a teabag can understand that, surely?

it is the height of absolute stupidity to believe that the founders would craft an amendment that did nothing more than guarantee the right of standing armies to have weapons when they had just suffered decades of oppression from a standing army who tried to take their weapons. welcome to the height of your stupidity.
 
Chappaquiddick Teddy: "...So my administrative assistant talked to the Department of Homeland Security and they said there’s some mistake. It happened three more times and finally Secretary Ridge called to apologize on it. It happened even after he called to apologize because they couldn’t — my name was on the list at the airports and with the airlines and the Homeland Security. He couldn’t get my name off the list for a period of weeks."

According to a Washington Post article at the time, Kennedy was repeatedly stopped because his name matched an alias, “T. Kennedy,” used by a suspected terrorist.

Kennedy, however, was never actually on the no-fly list, but a secondary “selectee list.” According to the Department of Homeland Security, individuals on the selectee list “must undergo additional security screening” before boarding their flight. Those on the no-fly list cannot obtain a boarding pass."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...he-fly-list/sfH9Z1JRrvXR3860gedr9J/story.html


So whats your point,
Kennedy was repeatedly stopped because his name matched an alias, “T. Kennedy,” and he, even being a sitting Senator, had trouble getting his name off this list...

What you call the list is irrelevant. Call it the shopping list if you want, the effect was the same. He was stopped and questioned when he tried to board a plane....
 
Again, I suggest you read his commentary in Parade that I linked to earlier.

In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "need not be challenged". He continues that, "the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game," in the same fashion that no one could, "challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . ."

Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."

So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns.

OK

Sounds to me like Burger is saying that machine guns (and cheap, low quality) handguns can be regulated in a fashion like motor vehicles but guns suitable for defense of the home and guns suitable for hunting should be as immune from governmental oversight as fishing equipment since the right to own such things is unquestionable and not subject to challenge (including any militia based attack on the right).

Sounds like in 1990 he's advocating the NRA's position that a unassailable constitutional right to own guns for various legal purposes without any militia conditioning exists . . .

And then he becomes a paid shill for handgun Control Incorporated to say such a position is a "fraud" less than a year later????

Hmmmmmmmm.



You can not be serious; really, you are joking right? There is no individual right to arms recognized by SCOTUS in Cruikshank because the Court said that the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution?



Presser doesn't help you either. Presser re-affirmed Cruikshank saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. The Presser Court specifically said that the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms and that federal rights enforcement (to stop the states disarming its citizens) exists without reference to or appeal to the 2nd Amendment.

And while Presser did say that the 2nd Amendment did not bind state action, why do you think that point helps you now given that SCOTUS has since incorporated the 2nd under the 14th?



The conclusion of the author (that there is no individual RKBA because the framers did not specifically mention or allow for it in the 2nd) is preposterous and is refuted by the framers endorsement of delegated powers / retained rights theory. I would recommend reading the Federalist 84 and Madison's introduction of the proposed amendments for an explanation of the rights theory. An understanding of the framer's understanding of the nature of rights disallows the maintenance of the author's position (that our rights are fully dependent upon the provisions crafted to secure them).



I've read it (and a thousand before it that say the same thing) and I'm quite willing and able to refute the premise and conclusion with certifiable facts.


and here is a MAJOR flaw in the logic you use for all your screeds. Note the following in which you quoted: "
In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "need not be challenged". He continues that, "the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game," in the same fashion that no one could, "challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . ."

Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."

So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns."


your quote deals specifically with hunting rifles...he was NOT talking about weapons like assault rifles or various handguns that are NOT designed for hunting. I say this in reference to Burgers statements regarding weapons that DUE need regulation. YOU distort what he says as some sort of parallel to the interpretation used by all gunners (NRA pundits and the like) that the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee that you can have whatever type of gun, as many as you like, carry any and every where you please without any type of regulation from gov't (state or federal). remember that there were VERY SPECIFIC RULES for forming a state militia as to type of weapons, ammo, stock, etc. (See subsequent Militia Acts). So by your own train of thought...hunting rifles are the ONLY weapons the 2nd Amendment guarantees, as Burger points out.


When all is said and done, the carrying on about what preceded the final draft and legalization of the 2nd amendment is good for shooting the breeze, but does NOT change the FACT that while Americans have the right to purchase a weapon, they do NOT have the right to military style weapons, as many are NOT forming a militia. You STILL have federally recognized state militias in America. They are well regulated. You have law abiding Americans owning weapons under various state laws with some federal regulation. Additional licensing and registration (as Burger suggested) would not eliminate home grown terrorists, gangsters and general madmen, but it would help in reducing who can criminally obtain a weapon, as guns could be more easily traced, and the black market would become more expensive, thus having less customers.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
Again, I suggest you read his commentary in Parade that I linked to earlier.

In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "need not be challenged". He continues that, "the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game," in the same fashion that no one could, "challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . ."

Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."

So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns.

OK

Sounds to me like Burger is saying that machine guns (and cheap, low quality) handguns can be regulated in a fashion like motor vehicles but guns suitable for defense of the home and guns suitable for hunting should be as immune from governmental oversight as fishing equipment since the right to own such things is unquestionable and not subject to challenge (including any militia based attack on the right).

Sounds like in 1990 he's advocating the NRA's position that a unassailable constitutional right to own guns for various legal purposes without any militia conditioning exists . . .

And then he becomes a paid shill for handgun Control Incorporated to say such a position is a "fraud" less than a year later????

Hmmmmmmmm.



To start with, I read the article. And the paragraph you omitted is:

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:


  1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
  2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
  3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
  4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.

Apparently you're no different from the others who don't believe views can evolve, i.e. your comment "paid shill for Handgun Control."


omission of what doesn't fit into their revisionism and beliefs seems to be the cornerstone of many of the gunners arguments.
 
the right constantly scream about how ONLY THEY matter and everyone else is meaningless.


they hate their fellow man

I would gladly give up all of my guns if you take one of them and blow your fucking brains out and let Grind make the video a sticky on JPP. Deal?

Take one for the team?
 
But my bullshit has support in the philosophical, historical and legal underpinnings of the US Constitution.

Your bullshit has no support; it is just the ignorant wishful thinking of a Euro-weenie collectivist who hasn't a clue and couldn't catch a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues even if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.


Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Constitution. -- By the second amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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 amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America 282-83 (Boston, Little, Brown 2d ed. 1891)​

"...couldn't catch a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues even if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance..."


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

That needs to be saved for the sake of history.





'
 
and here is a MAJOR flaw in the logic you use for all your screeds.

That rings hollow since nobody here can muster a rebuttal to my screeds that consists of anything more intelligent than calling me a poopyhead.

It's pretty pathetic; it's either vulgar name-calling or the withering OP who begins with Wizard of Oz bluster and brass balls swinging and then slinks away like a kicked puppy when he gets exactly what he demanded be provided. And now you come along and want to talk about logical flaws???

The side with the flaws in logic is your side; both the OP and the article linked to in the OP begin with egregious examples of logical flaws. The OP makes a statement that is actually true and in reality destroys his position but proceeds to pervert it to make an anti-constitutional argument:

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

It is absolutely correct that the founders [framers] never intended to create any right to arms (absolute or otherwise). The framers embraced the concept of conferred powers and retained rights and founded the Constitution on those intermingled principles. That means we don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution . . . We possess the right to arms because "We the People" never parted with it -- no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. The right to arms doesn't exist in the words of the 2nd Amendment; it exists in the silence in the body of the Constitution.

I tried to challenge the OP directly on this point regarding his comment on Cruikshank; that because the Court said the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution that means there is no individual right to arms. He/she refuses to explain their logic for that statement, instead chooses to tell me I missed the context. What bullshit.

So, why would your side engage in such logical flaws? This assignment of a constitutionally erroneous position to their opposition allows the anti to begin his argument from what he perceives as common ground -- that the right flows from the 2nd Amendment and is dependent upon the 2nd -- and allows him to constrain the debate on what the words allow the people to do.

This is the logical flaw upon which the entire "state's right" / "militia right" / "collective right" anti-gun argument is grounded; that the 2nd Amendment grants / gives / creates / establishes the right it mentions (whatever it may be).

If one wants to bemoan a fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud' perpetrated upon the nation, that millions of constitutional imbeciles believe, there you go.

Note the following in which you quoted: [ . . . ] your quote deals specifically with hunting rifles...he was NOT talking about weapons like assault rifles or various handguns that are NOT designed for hunting. I say this in reference to Burgers statements regarding weapons that DUE need regulation.

Again, I quoted the Parade comments to demonstrate that Burger was a senile clod. I was not citing him as an authority, I was exposing his constitutional schizophrenia.

YOU distort what he says as some sort of parallel to the interpretation used by all gunners (NRA pundits and the like) that the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee that you can have whatever type of gun, as many as you like, carry any and every where you please without any type of regulation from gov't (state or federal).

And there goes another assignment of a position (absolute right) that only exists in the arguments of anti-gunners. I've enjoyed debating gun rights / gun control since 1993 and if there has been one constant point of idiocy, it is that . . . For once I would like to see an anti actually debate what a gun rights supporter has said instead of the strawman they have convinced themselves gun rights people believe.

When all is said and done, the carrying on about what preceded the final draft and legalization of the 2nd amendment is good for shooting the breeze, but does NOT change the FACT that while Americans have the right to purchase a weapon, they do NOT have the right to military style weapons, as many are NOT forming a militia.

That's nonsensical. You (and Wandering Warren) want us to recognize that the object of the 2nd Amendment was to perpetuate the militia and assign a militia focused conditioning on the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to arms . . . But then exclude the types of arms that would be useful in the common defense, substituting "sporting [hunting] guns.

Which side is arguing logical flaws again?

If you want to adhere strictly to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, the only firearms that enjoy near absolute protection under the 2nd Amendment are modern semi-auto, hi-cap civilian versions of a military rifle, i.e., AK-47, AR-15 in .223/5.56mm or .308/7.62mm caliber and semi-auto pistols in 9mm, .40 or .45 caliber.

Why?

The criteria established by the Supreme Court in 1939 to decide the question of whether the government possesses the power to restrict possession and use of a type of arm is three pronged . . . If the gun is of a type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment, and/or of a type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizenry, and/or of a type in common use by the citizens at that time, then a claim by the government that it possesses a power to restrain the possession and use of that arm is either repelled or invalidated if already in effect.
 
omission of what doesn't fit into their revisionism and beliefs seems to be the cornerstone of many of the gunners arguments.

Well, given all I've written in this thread you should have no problem finding something to challenge me directly on and back up this bald claim.
 
Fantastic article. Too long to post the full thing but a very good read that's sure to inflame gun lovers.

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.

***

The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored. The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon. On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

***
Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure. What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.

(Continued)


I'm confused. The bill of rights don't pertain to the rights of individuals? What do they pertain to then?

Also, note in the sentence structure of the second amendment that "well regulated" is an explanation, not a limitation on the right.
 
That rings hollow since nobody here can muster a rebuttal to my screeds that consists of anything more intelligent than calling me a poopyhead.

It's pretty pathetic; it's either vulgar name-calling or the withering OP who begins with Wizard of Oz bluster and brass balls swinging and then slinks away like a kicked puppy when he gets exactly what he demanded be provided. And now you come along and want to talk about logical flaws???

The side with the flaws in logic is your side; both the OP and the article linked to in the OP begin with egregious examples of logical flaws. The OP makes a statement that is actually true and in reality destroys his position but proceeds to pervert it to make an anti-constitutional argument:

Again, I quoted the Parade comments to demonstrate that Burger was a senile clod. I was not citing him as an authority, I was exposing his constitutional schizophrenia.

<snip>

Apparently you have a problem with comprehension. My reason for posting this thread was in #115. Your positions and those of everyone else who answered the true/false questions were not all
identical. Those who answered are all strong supporters of gun rights so how can it be that their interpretations varied?

Post 115
: "Read the entire thread. Look at all the insults that resulted from me posting an article about gun lovers' sacred cow. Then read the posts from people who actually responded to the true/false questions. There was no consensus about each point even though every one of those posters is a 2nd Amendment advocate. Even the advocates can't agree on history or interpretation. That is my point, that reasonable people can disagree about a document and its provisions that was written over 225 years ago."


You immediately defaulted to insult over Burger's comments and called him a sell-out. Apparently you can't comprehend that views evolve and that people aren't locked into an opinion throughout their lives. If you have evidence that his views tainted any SC decisions, post it. It doesn't help your argument to slam Burger because his personal views changed over time. I'm certain you wouldn't have called him a schizophrenic clod if his view had changed from anti- to pro-.

No guns are being grabbed in this country. That is just another fear mongering meme used to stir up those who are too dumb to know better and it's worked ever since La Pierre took over the NRA. You doubtless have no problem with his hyperbole about "jack-booted government thugs" yet you insult Burger because he suggested four very reasonable remedies to try and curb the gun violence in America:

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:


  1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
  2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
  3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
  4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?

These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquility" promised in the Constitution.

Perhaps you can take a stab at answering what I, Burger and millions of Americans want to know: how can gun violence in this country be reduced? Perhaps you can do it without resorting to insults, but I doubt it.
 
Back
Top