New Zealand Prime Minster Acts to Weaken Its Citizenry with a Ban

That, of course, assumes, that the military will always side with the government, an Idea that history fully demonstrates isn't always so.

 

No, it is a broad sweeping solution to a very narrow problem, and I don't think it's even going to address the problem. It was done to let people feel better.

 

3 in 10 owns a gun.

Three percent of the population own half of the civilian guns in the US
https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/

 

Your posts are over the top.

But regarding the 2nd Amendment, you're right, it doesn't need to be "interpreted".

The meaning is clear...it gave the states (the people) the right to have a militia, with all the rules that go along with that, age requirements, etc.

It gives no rights to any individual.

 

I never said that. I said most people don't own one and want strict laws.

The Constitution gives the states the right to have a well regulated militia, and has zero to do with what I'm talking about.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there can be no gun laws or restrictions, and there have been such laws since the beginning of the country and throughout the history of the country, and those rules have nothing to do with any particular political party.

 

I've read it thousands of times.

Obviously you have not.

As Justice Burger said, the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

 

Not in America.

 

Does that include the guy in the 2nd mosque who picked up a gun and drove the shooter away?

 

Everywhere.

 

Yeah all those special interest groups in 1776 were lobbying for the 2A's inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

 

He initially used a hand held credit card machine. He threw the shooter's (the coward's) gun at the loser's windshield.

He obviously had no gun of his own.

 

Not without laws and restrictions....

the majority of Republicans and Democrats in this country support stronger restrictions.

 

He's talking mainly about the NRA subverting the meaning of the (antiquated) 2nd Amendment in modern times.

 

I see you missed the point.

The 2A was passed with the Bill of Rights. It's not something that could have been advanced by "special interest groups".

The 2A is no more antiquated than the 1A, although I know leftists have no use for that one either.

 

I know.

Clearly the shooter didn't know that the gun wasn't loaded.

You know anybody that runs from a gun they know isn't loaded?

Now, when the next massacre comes, the shooter will know for sure the victims are defenseless.

Great plan you have there. Baaaaa.

 

Wrong on all counts. Well regulated in the parlance of the day meant adequately trained in the use of their weapons it meant nothing about the state running it. It meant that a well regulated militia. that is well trained, is necessary to the survival of the state, and the militia is composed of every able bodied male citizen who was responsible for furnishing his own military type weaponry uniform and ammunition.

 

Nothing about individual citizens having any right other than in regard to a state militia.

That's why they reference a militia, and the state's (the people's) rights.

If they wanted to give the individual any sort of non-infringed rights, they would have said so...as they do in other amendments.

Fact is, there have always been rules and restrictions and control on arms. And that's what the majority of Americans want.

 

Yes there is it is inherent in the term militia and who the militia was composed of and please, don't give me that lame crap about the national guard which doesn't even come into existence until well after the Civil War.

 

No, the right Is universal for all humanity whether they are in Kansas or the dark side of the moon.

It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. It’s irrelevant.

This country was the first in history to acknowledge what rights are and who has them. Off and on we’ve tried to live up to the standard. Most will eventually give up on these truisms because most people would rather shuffle through life in shackles harboring the delusion they are in a position of authority over others than personally enjoy all the freedoms nature intended.

Some will never surrender their rights to those who are at best their equal.

 

So able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 must be prepared to join the militia.

That leaves many citizens out.

Because it had nothing to do with individuals.

It had to do with the state (the people).

Fact is, there have always been rules and restrictions from the get go in America. So if every rule is an infringement, then that makes zero sense.

But they aren't infringements at all.

Hence, "infringements", rules and restrictions are perfectly legit, always have been. That's what the vast majority of Americans want, both Dem and Repub.

 

Not according to the laws of this land, not without rules and restrictions.

 

Well actually the top was 65 and militia enabling legislation existed in dozens of countries not just the US. And they citizenry all had to furnish there own weapons which meant they had to have them in their possession before the militia was mustered. It has been tried repeatedly and the courts when called up have rejected such infringement Heller being only the latest example.

 

To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.


Rules and restrictions, always have been, always will be. That's what the majority of people want, Dems and Repubs. It's perfectly legit within the laws of the Constitution. Always has been, always will be.

 

Again sir the militia as envisaged by the founders was not the national guard which doesn't come into existence for few decades. Pretending that it is, happens to be dishonest.

 

Do you expect every human on the face of the earth to purchase assault weapons to defend themselves? The reality of the situation is that most people don't own guns, don't want guns, and don't even think about guns during their daily lives. So when a daily routine is interrupted by a hate filled shooting spree by sadistic white nationalists, that's why innocent victims don't have M-4s and M-16s to defend themselves; they shouldn't have to! That is what the professional ARMY is for. And by banning those assault weapons, they can ensure that ONLY the professional army will have them.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/FLAMEBAIT >>>