What law()s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?

same laws that make it harder to buy machine guns?

 

then it's unconstitutional to ban ex-felons from owning guns

agree, requiring a concealed carry permit to conceal ones gun is wrong, just like ones privates, some things are best kept concealed in public, it's the polite way to carry, should not need a permit to be polite

 

do Republicans want to take your guns?

 

Yes they do.

 

Tench Coxe was known as Mr. Facing Both Ways because he was a Tory later turned a patriot. The only writings that contradicted each other was his writings on trade. His writings and support for the constitution and his explanation of the second were never contradictory in nature.

As far as the original draft of the second that never made as ratified only further emphasizes the intent of the peoples right to bear arms to not be infringed upon then with a ( that indicates a larger separation than a regular (,) he gave a right to the states to maintain a militia with the ability to infringement. This is because Madison was a fan of more power to the federal government and even a fan of monarchy. It’s also worth noting that the fear of a standing army was very strong. So giving this right without the possibility of infringement would allow states to make a standing army.

There is no doubt that military service was a factor but that never in any writings takes away from the peoples right to bear arms. That interpretation is absolutely absurd.

 

What the hell? Who gives a crap! The point is that he was pretty much an irrelevant figure in what pertains to the 2nd Amendment.

But, more importantly, that the idea that the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd A was "composed of the body of the people" was considered, discussed and voted DOWN. And that's why, if you were ever to read what the 2nd A actually SAYS, you will notice it was REMOVED.

AND his, Washington's and Hamilton's position, concerning the "well regulated militia" NOT being "composed of the body of the people" PREVAILED

I'm not talking about the right to bear arms. I'm talking about the right to own weapons. The 2nd Amendment doesn't take away, doesn't restrict, doesn't affirm, doesn't grant... The 2nd A as written and approved by Congress and by the States, simply doesn't ADDRESS in any way whatsoever some "right" to own weapons.

 

You know your statement is false

 

Banning FEDs from grooming and assisting terrorists.

 

I love how you broke down my 28 line response into 8 lines as if that’s the only lines I used to make a point. Hard to debate the whole post I suppose.

It matters about the term Mr. Both Ways because you had somehow thought that the nickname somehow discredits his writings on the second and it does not.

likewise he still had regular conversations with the founders, completely understood the meaning of the second or he would not have been utilized to sell the constitution to the American public in his writings.

I also love how you completely ignore the semicolon in your example you used as if that reiterated your point and it completely did not. That semicolon is an obvious indicator that the peoples right to keep and bear arms was always meant for the people. Not the state, or the federal government. And that the right of a militia was clearly intended to be a state right.

you can huff and puff all you want but you will never blow the 2nd amendment down. Tench Coxe lived in the time, he was fully capable of understanding its meaning. As he can be quoted, the state nor the federal governments have power over this right, that the American public have the same sword and shield of a soldier. It is a private right.

 

It's because he know he cannot address your points.
Much like he cannot demonstrate the necessary relationships between the causes he claims and the effects he cites.

 

Nope. They have no such power. Read Article III of the Constitution sometime.

 

So yep they do.

 

Dear God! I don't understand why you waste your time sending all these empty "No, it's not" posts. Just so you know, not only do I not respond to them. I don't even bother to check what it is you are claiming is "false". If you have a serious point to make, make it. And I might not respond to it if it's not serious. But it's more likely I'll read it. However, it's obvious you ran out of points a long time ago.

 

You appear to believe that it's more important to QUOTE than it is to respond to the point I'm making. Those 8 lines where the ones that contained the ONLY part of your post that related to the point I was making about the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment.

I have ZERO interest in discussing whether Madison was a fan of monarchy, and even LESS in discussing an irrelevant figure like Coxe who said NOTHING about "conversations" leading to the passing of the 2nd A.

And, given that I provided support of everything I say with direct quotes and references, I also have no interest in the claims you make using NO references or quotes.

I have no idea what semicolon you are talking about. But the right to keep and bear arms (which is not the right to own weapons) MOST CERTAINLY was meant for the people And you might want to ask Trump why he removed this right from transgenders during his administration, by not allowing them to serve in the military.

But I'm not really interested in that. All I'm interested in is the INTENT of the 2nd A. And that is clearly spelled out... not in anything I say, but in everything I quote. And which you re-quoted, but DID NOT address. So you should worry less about "quoting" and more about responding to my actual arguments. You can forgo quoting me altogether, for all I care. But do not forgo addressing my point in YOUR response!!!

"...composed of the body of the people" was proposed, discussed, and even included by the House, but then removed from the 2nd Amendment by the Senate. And the reason was that Federalists (led by Washington and Hamilton) DID NOT want the well regulated militia to to be "compose of the bode of the people"

You have quoted it again and again but NOT addressed this FACT even for a second. You keep insisting on talking about Madison and an obscure and irrelevant character like Mr. Both Ways instead.

 

Did you notice how you did not demonstrate your statement to be true, when challenged to do so?
Must be because you know you cannot.
As per the norm.

 

You know this statement is false.

 

You’re right, he only spoke of the rights granted as it was passed which obviously meant private ownership. You don’t want to discuss him because his legal interpretation blows everything out of the water you have posted.

 

Yet you still refuse to acknowledge the semicolon of the original write up that also very distinctively separates “the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” from the rest of the amendment, even before the state or militia. It was and always was the intent to give the people this right.

*As Tench Coxe Can Be Quoted*

 

Including private ownership of guns in the Constitution was consider absurd, because it was a GIVEN that people had a right to own guns, just like they had a right to own a house, or boots or a horse.

The ONLY mention of "private ownership" that I could find during the discussions about the 2nd A was a proposal that somebody (I don't know who) made in the House. And we only know about it because it was ridiculed by Noah Webster when he asked sarcastically why not add: “That Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.”

I don't want to discuss him because he's an irrelevant figure that you quote ONLY because you think he thought the militia should be considered "the body of the people". Which, as I SHOWED, as considered, debated and voted down by the Senate. Instead of this FACT, you just want to discuss WHY they called him "Mr. Both Ways"

 

Don't be ridiculous! Not even Scalia dared use that OLD idiotic argument. In the 18th century commas and semicolons were not used like we do today. They were used simply to indicate to the person who was reading the text out loud, where they could pause to take a breath (and to separate items in a list, in the case of the comma). Nothing more.

But I'm happy to see you are FINALLY reading the text I quoted.

 

I addressed this in the first post you obviously did not read. A semicolon has always been used as a stronger separation than a comma… Always

 

A hundred times NO!!!! Dear God! What nonsense you make up....

A simple google search and you would have avoided such an absurd pseudo-argument. RESEARCH!!!

Use a semicolon to replace a comma when you use a coordinating conjunction to link independent clauses that already contain commas.
https://www.niu.edu/writingtutorial/punctuation/semicolon.shtml#:~:text=Use a semicolon to replace,, however, thus, therefore.​

In this case the semicolon is used to separate a sentence from a list that already contains a comma to separate the items in the list. So that it's clear that it's NOT part of the list. This is why there is a semicolon in...

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country..."

It precedes a list. A list of two items "...[1] a well armed, and [2] well regulated militia", which already contains a comma.

And this is also why the FINAL draft has only a comma (the second one),

"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 semicolon was replaced by a comma (the second one) that separates the absolute clause from the main clause. Because "well armed" was removed and, therefore, it's no longer a list.

Now... please don't degrade the quality of this discussion by making up nonsensical arguments as you go along. Don't just throw crap at the wall to see if anything sticks. Read my sig!!!