The 2nd Amendment

Perhaps they are simply trying to gauge our reaction...no one's come out shootin' yet, so...

P.s. GOT IT! It's all about boosting gun and ammo sales! look how good it's working too!
HaHa and they say Obama doesn't know how to stimulate the economy...

 

meagain,

I'm happy that you read 'it', and if you have difficulty understanding a word or words, please consult a dictionary as most words are defined by many other words, and they too would have to be explained definitively, which is the purpose of a dictionary. You might also consult a dictionary of the time period the words were written as that can have a significant effect on how the words should be understood.

I prefer to deal with reality and not waste time on hypotheticals. Maybe someone else might enjoy playing that game?

Sorry, but I seem to have missed where deviate suggested reintroducing slavery. What next? Burning witches at the stake?

 

:smilielol5:

 

Indie

And as I’ve pointed out you have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth should have extra voting power to block or veto the wishes of the majority.

But – I’m arguing that if there wasn’t this level of fear, apprehension, dread, disquiet, foreboding, worry, etc about being harmed (by crime or government) seemingly amongst so many pro-gunners then maybe people wouldn’t feel like they needed guns for protection and there wouldn’t be this level of hysteria whenever any gun control measures were proposed. Then there could come a time when the 2nd Amendment could be changed by another amendment to make it clearer.

You see to me this insistence that the second amendment is about Americans having the right seemingly to any weapon is just part of wider attitudes and mentality that breeds fear.

If that mentality changed and the level of fear dropped then the 2A could be seen differently.

 

Bal,

Yes Bal, you are like a magnet for facetious comments, but apparently unable to recognize them, or why they are employed.

Might I suggest you would do better to "Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see."

Like I, and I believe some others too, have explained to you numerous times before, if we lived in a crime free world, I, we?, would still enjoy the guns I, we?, own, and maybe even purchase more of them.

Is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." not clear enough for you? I do accept that government, primarily the police departments, have the right consented to by the governed, to apprehend and prosecute those who put to use in a criminal way a gun, or any other object capable of doing harm to a person. Until such time a gun does not pose a threat to anyone. Guns do not think, and are inanimate object. I don't view each individual person who owns a gun as a possible threat. If ever a need for a gun occurs, it's nice to have one. If no need ever occurs, they can be enjoyed in a number of ways, aesthetically in their design or engravings, target shooting, hunting, etc.

 

Which ones on the list do you think are most likely?

 

If you believe that, then you really don't understand our Constitution, which would require repealing the 13th amendment, and is highly unlikely. The 16th and 17th amendments are the only amendments I would like to see repealed, and for reasons along the lines given in the speech by Mason, which I think you claimed to have read.

Oh, I nearly forgot, you're quite welcome, and feel free to share.

 

Not too concerned with any of them really, I just meant to point out that you are good at downplaying the more conspiratorial notions... no worry's, I think it's one of your good quality's

 

I didn't ask that, I copied and pasted someone elses breakdown of it like I prefaced.

And thanks for your opinion. But imho, your opinion does nothing to invalidate anything that may be going on. You don't even live here and are unaware of the insidious and subtle changes that have taken place in the last 12 years.

I'm not fully convinced that martial law is coming. I'm not running around with a tin foil hat on. However, I will state that in light of what is going on right now in our country and the world at large.. anyone advocating disarmament is an idiot at best, and traitor at worst.

 

Why don't you move to England then, share some tea and scones with your new buddy. They can't own 'assault weapons' there, so you'll be safe.

 

Bal, you have to be one very very strange dude in day to day life.

You seem to be believe people are implying whatever YOU want them to be implying, regardless of what they say.

You are so far removed from reality and in the realm of hypothetical scenarios, that I don't know if I should laugh at you or feel bad for you.

 

They are just beginning to take words, twist them, and run with it. I guess that's what happens when people run out of arguments.

 

Meagain, the tea and scones comment wasn't at least a little bit funny?

 

Who says I'm not safe?


I'm not allowed to own firearms anyway, I was convicted of a pot felony...

 

I was beginning to believe those who support tougher gun control laws did so implying it to make us safer.

Is that based on a State or Federal law?

 

Indie

And to repeat - I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning guns, I do think there should be strong regulation in place and I worry about a society where people feel they need guns out of a sense of fear.

In full I believe it is - 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.

In my and many others reading – the right to bear arms is linked to being in ‘a well regulated militia’.

I would then look at “being necessary to the security of a free state” but the US now has a standing army and in fact the best equip standing army in the world. Also the US has one of the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons in the world. Outside of the paranoid fantasies of conspiracy theorists the US is not going to be invaded, so there doesn’t seem to be much use for militia’s to defend against invasion, so that leaves internal security, but it seems to me that you have police forces for that.

So if in the scenario above were certain guns were outlawed, the refusal to hand them over would be a criminal offence, so you would be happy to hand them over?

 

Deviate

If you read the posts you’d notice that I’m asking for clarification, time and again I’m asking – is this what you mean, are you implying this etc etc. But time and time again you evade, this reply itself is just another evasion.

Why not stop evading and just answer the questions put to you clearly?

 

You can always petition to have your rights restored.