Why assault rifles and 30 round magazines Should be banned...

you seem to misunderstand "shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall pass no laws that abridges these Rights"
abridge means to convey those Rights into privileges or to transfere those Rights to Congress.
If that SCOTUS decision meant what you imply, guns would have been seized immediately upon that decision.
People who want to lord and rule over people want them disarmed, kinda like you. Here's my take, if all of you anti-gunners want to see us disarmed, jump on your lil' red wagons and come get 'em yourself. Otherwise, they are cowards with two sides to their mouths.
I wonder at what point in time, in the future, what Rights you'll fight for.
Who's Rights did I violate?
What Rights did I violate?
NONE, so you're done here.
With people like you, we don't need Congress, we just need thugs who use strong-arm policies to ensure protect whatever privileges you might be granted.
Ask China about their Bill of Rights. An unarmed nation is an opressed nation.
Socialist want somebody else to do the work for them by force, then gather the results through force. It has always been so and it will remain so.

 

Please quote what I wrote that made you think that. I don't think I wrote a word about what those words mean.

But since you brought them up what do they mean to you? Does "shall not be infringe" mean that convicts and the mentally deranged have a right to possess fully automatic weapons? Or is it OK to infringe the right in these cases?

That's not even in the second amendment. Trying actually reading the 2A before you lecture someone its meaning. You won't look so silly.

[quote\If that SCOTUS decision meant what you imply, guns would have been seized immediately upon that decision. [/quote]

Not at all.

Where did I ever say I wanted people disarmed? Do you always blather about things you know nothing about? Apparently so.

Nice emotional rant, but it has nothing to do with my post.

- - - Updated - - -

Please quote what I wrote that made you think that. I don't think I wrote a word about what those words mean.

But since you brought them up what do they mean to you? Does "shall not be infringe" mean that convicts and the mentally deranged have a right to possess fully automatic weapons? Or is it OK to infringe the right in these cases?

That's not even in the second amendment. Trying actually reading the 2A before you lecture someone its meaning. You won't look so silly.

[quote\If that SCOTUS decision meant what you imply, guns would have been seized immediately upon that decision. [/quote]

Not at all.

Where did I ever say I wanted people disarmed? Do you always blather about things you know nothing about? Apparently so.

Nice emotional rant, but it has nothing to do with my post.

 

Not at all.



Where did I ever say I wanted people disarmed? Do you always blather about things you know nothing about? Apparently so.



Nice emotional rant, but it has nothing to do with my post.

- - - Updated - - -



Please quote what I wrote that made you think that. I don't think I wrote a word about what those words mean.

But since you brought them up what do they mean to you? Does "shall not be infringe" mean that convicts and the mentally deranged have a right to possess fully automatic weapons? Or is it OK to infringe the right in these cases?



That's not even in the second amendment. Trying actually reading the 2A before you lecture someone its meaning. You won't look so silly.

[quote\If that SCOTUS decision meant what you imply, guns would have been seized immediately upon that decision. [/quote]

Not at all.



Where did I ever say I wanted people disarmed? Do you always blather about things you know nothing about? Apparently so.



Nice emotional rant, but it has nothing to do with my post.[/QUOTE]

so, then, we can assume you desire no change in the 2nd A. And yes,once a criminal has served his time and paid for his crime, why not? If they pose such a risk to society, why the hell let them out? Murders should be executed, pedophiles should stood in front of a bus tied to a stake, bus doing 70 mph. Horse thieves and cattle rustlers should be hung.
Don't insinuate that you are for protecting these people, lookiing out for their Rights by evensuggesting that the whole of society needs to be penalized for their action.
You're either for or against gun control. Any infringement on any Right reduces that Right to a privilege. Rights cannot be taken away, but history show us that privilege changes. Some chant that Maobama isn't going to take our guns away. That might be true, but he sure is helping himself to all the ammunition available, in effect disarming while keeping his promise. Nope,he won't take the guns, but that bastard will sure take the ammo.
You are, afterall, in a gun thread, demonstrating your wish to "restrict" gun ownership.
Just let them keep nibbling away at the BoR, like rats chewing on a bone, or stop them here and now.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all.



Where did I ever say I wanted people disarmed? Do you always blather about things you know nothing about? Apparently so.



Nice emotional rant, but it has nothing to do with my post.

- - - Updated - - -



Please quote what I wrote that made you think that. I don't think I wrote a word about what those words mean.

But since you brought them up what do they mean to you? Does "shall not be infringe" mean that convicts and the mentally deranged have a right to possess fully automatic weapons? Or is it OK to infringe the right in these cases?



That's not even in the second amendment. Trying actually reading the 2A before you lecture someone its meaning. You won't look so silly.

[quote\If that SCOTUS decision meant what you imply, guns would have been seized immediately upon that decision. [/quote]

Not at all.



Where did I ever say I wanted people disarmed? Do you always blather about things you know nothing about? Apparently so.



Nice emotional rant, but it has nothing to do with my post.[/QUOTE]

so, then, we can assume you desire no change in the 2nd A. And yes,once a criminal has served his time and paid for his crime, why not? If they pose such a risk to society, why the hell let them out? Murders should be executed, pedophiles should stood in front of a bus tied to a stake, bus doing 70 mph. Horse thieves and cattle rustlers should be hung.
Don't insinuate that you are for protecting these people, lookiing out for their Rights by evensuggesting that the whole of society needs to be penalized for their action.
You're either for or against gun control. Any infringement on any Right reduces that Right to a privilege. Rights cannot be taken away, but history show us that privilege changes. Some chant that Maobama isn't going to take our guns away. That might be true, but he sure is helping himself to all the ammunition available, in effect disarming while keeping his promise. Nope,he won't take the guns, but that bastard will sure take the ammo.
You are, afterall, in a gun thread, demonstrating your wish to "restrict" gun ownership.
Just let them keep nibbling away at the BoR, like rats chewing on a bone, or stop them here and now.

 

No, when someone breaks the law, they give up certain rights, and the mentally deranged need to be taken care of by another, so in all certain rights cannot apply to those two groups.
What my friend quoted is in the bill of rights, it explains that no form of government may pass a law to make any of the rights a privelage, and that includes the 2nd amendment. He was not quoting the 2nd Amendment.
Kinda made yourself look silly there....

 

...........and the "Informed One" brings a new set of goal posts....I don't think "full auto" guns were ever mentioned by either you or I.................

 

No, they weren't. I do believe though that they should be legal. Yes they may be used in murders, but the overall murder rate would not go up. Scince they can't get there hands on a full auto they use a semi auto (rifle or pistol), and if they can't get there hands on a semi auto, they use a shotgun (like the guy in NY), and if they can't get there hands on any firearms, they use other means like knives, blunt objects, hands, etc.). When a bunch of places start banning guns and people still get murdered at the same rate, it is safe to say that guns are clearly not the problem. The absence of fully auto firearms is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment in that the common people are supposed to be armed as the military people.

 

You have accused me of the following:
- kicking you
- trying to control you
- calling you names
- belittling you
- stating that I claimed that you kill children

In fact, I have done none of the above. Your post is highly irresponsible and dishonest and you're lucky that I don't report you -- especially for that offensive last accusation.

Also, I've been called plenty of names and told to leave the country, so don't you dare claim that I'm an "aggressor" here. If there is one thing that the pro-gun side is, it's loud and aggressive.

 

Yes we are loud and aggressive, they are trying to take something away that we hold sacred as American citizens. However, there is a difference on being the aggressor and being aggressive. As part of the pro gun control crowd, you are in with the aggressors, we as a response become aggressive, mainly due to the fact that the government influences the media so much, that our side doesn't get heard. The pro gun control crowd uses skewered results, scare tactics (like giving semi auto rifles a scary name) and misinformation. As a result, we become infuriated.

Freie Männer werden beschuldigt.

If some came after a right that you held sacred, using tactics to scare people into supporting them, you would be "loud" and "aggressive" as well.

 

Well great. You think the mentally deranged and convicted felons should have unregulated and unrestricted automatic weapons. Good for you. I don't. Which I suppose makes me a anti-gun nut to you and you a gun nut to me.

How about grenades, rocket launchers, and shoulder fired ground to air missiles. You figure the mentally deranged and convicted felons have unrestricted rights to those too?

 

Great. So you believe there should be lawful restrictions on the right to bear arms that "shall not be infringed" and so do I. So do the folks who drafted and passed the second amendment.

The only thing we may disagree about is how broad those lawful restrictions should be.

- - - Updated - - -

What difference does it make?

 

none to a socialist

 

None to a gun nut.

 

only for those who live around you.............one extreme deserves another.
Felons...what was their crime?
mentally unstable...how do you predict that? The known broken mind is usually advised to stay away from guns, but the warning for the families is lost in HIPPA.
Admit it, you actually believe the gun owner is the Jew, and you want them imprisoned, or destroyed. If you don't really believe this, I can accept this, but just where will it end? Once the camel has his nose under the tent......all it takes is a nibble at a time.
How is it you can trust, that once guns are removed, that no other Right can be suspended, erroded, or dismantled. How would you prevent despotic rulers from turning you into a dead body? Do not presume to say it couldn't happen in a 1st world country, look at China and Russia, pre-fall........... these fine civilized upstanding nations have a history.
Look at what we did to the japanese and german citizens in the US during WWII.
Glance at early American hostory and the native Americans...Yep, we did all that in the name of civilization WITH the blessing of those who support violating all the basic human Rights and a deadly focus on "superiority".....
BTW, we did this to them after they were disarmed too. All japanese and germans were required to register their firearms on December 8th, 1941, and were disarmed and put into camps, "for their own safety" shortly thereafter.
You trust your government waaaaaaaaaay too much
hells, half acre, I don't even own a "full-automatic" firearm.

 

we are defending our Right to own firearms. You side with those who seek to take them , agressively.
I am only pushing back...........don't like it, then get the hell out of this debate. Or declare a truce............I will accept your acquiesence, peacefully.

 

Your assessment that folks who drafted (Madison drafted the 2nd Amendment and was altered in Congress), the 2nd Amendment were in favor of lawful restrictions upon it is not accurate. You are attempting to apply the contemporary definition of the word "infringe" when the 18th century definition was different. If you choose the route the meaning of a work, you would need to apply the mechanisms of textualism--you will need the original meaning of the word "infringed," not a contemporary dictionary's meaning.

Keep in mind that the militia statement is in the prefatory clause, and the "shall not be infringed" is in the operative clause.

Infringed is absolute in its meaning that guns are off limits and untouchable. Webster’s dictionary circa the Constitution: The word 'infringe" when the Bill of Rights was written was derived from the Latin word infrango. The meaning was meant to break, abolish, or cancel. There was no provision in the word "infringe" for restriction or limit.

 

I don't trust anyone completely. But I trust the government more than I trust convicted felons and the mentally deranged with automatic weapons.

 

I'm not pushing. I'm not calling anyone names. I'm not making threats. If you feel the need to do any of the above again then maybe you are the one who is incapable of debating. If you don't like civil debate, then this might not be the right forum for you.

I will never declare a truce if it means that more innocent people get slaughtered by gunfire.

 

It is not infrindging on anyones rights because a criminal forfits certain rights, therefor the right is not in place for it to be infrindged upon, and a mentally I'll person doesn't necessarily have the ability to make his own decision, therefor certain rights don't necessarily apply to him.

The rights ARE being infrindged to the law abiding citizens in an attempt to take away the rights of someone who doesn't have the rights in the first place.

I'm trying to explain this correctly, but I am at a loss of words at the moment....

 

Not really. If "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be abolished" then the Second Amendment is not constitutional. Article 5 of the Constitution allows for new amendments to be made, and ALL existing amendments to be rescinded.

There is no such thing as a constitutional amendment that cannot be repealed. Amending the Constitution keeps it alive and adaptable.

 

I understand your point. Nonetheless, you are certainly infringing on the convict's "right" to bear arms. You're simply asserting he has no such right. Of course, the second amendment makes no such provision.

 

Not really. If "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be abolished" then the Second Amendment is not constitutional. Article 5 of the Constitution allows for new amendments to be made, and ALL existing amendments to be rescinded.

There is no such thing as a constitutional amendment that cannot be repealed. Amending the Constitution keeps it alive and adaptable.

I am not following your logic on this. The Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment, applied only to the federal government, and enumerated inalienable and unalienable rights that the federal government cannot breach. I am also not following your resistance to the meaning of "infringe" the founders used. The federal government cannot abolish your right to bear arms, that was the original intent. This has nothing to do with an amendment being made or not. The term "shall not be abolished" only meant that the right to bear arms cannot be abolished.

You are making a circular argument that looks like the Ouroboros. An amendment is the Constitution. The 5th Amendment is the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 stated that No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Do you pay a direct tax without a proportion of the Census? Of course you do by virtue of the 16th Amendment.

 

Gun Nut: Anyone that does not have an irrational fear of inanimate objects shaped like a gun.

 

Gun nut: Folks who think convicted felons and the mentally deranged should have unrestricted and unregulated access to automatic weapons.

 

Straw man fallacy. Nice try but no gun shaped cigar.

 

with the two key components lying in the dust as of today, all they can do is weep and wring their hands and HOPE people like us are trust-worthy enough to not watch them killed by a sick mind. I will still practice firearm safety and continue to vigilant as I can when they are out. Can't ask for more than that, because I won't give them up because of a miniscule number of the population has malfunctioning brains.