Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun

[Imperializt Russia]

Tell it to the Supreme Court.
They have never read the constitution

Assumption.
Fact. Look at New York, Chicago, and LA they still have gangs with guns

No nation wants to invade the US anyway.
Russia, North Korea, Iran just to name a few.

If the government is that tyrannical then I can't imagine rednecks with small arms will get much done.
The First American Revolution. Witha good enough strategy we can take down anyone

Which is no reason not to have gun-control laws, only a reason to have better ones.
What do you have in mind?

Russia, North Korea and Iran do not want to and have never wanted to invade the US.

[Agritum]

Russia, North Korea and Iran do not want to and have never wanted to invade the US.

Let's also add that it would be a near impossible feat, logistics wise.

[Enadail]

Yes, it does, in the same sentence. Makes one think that the two are related. If the people who wrote the Second meant it to be only about the right to bear arms, why introduce the statement with a clause about the militia?

Purpose clauses are very useful in their own right, expressing justifications or explanation for the reason X is Y.

The core statement of X is Y is unaffected by their justification, aside from the principle that legislative intent is A Thing.

At the same time, in context, the first amendment makes no such comparison, nor third or fourth, etc. They don't say, in order to protect citizens from tyranny, Congress shall make no law... it simply states. Given that, it seems reasonable to assume the justification is a core part of the statement.

[Ifreann]

The argument that "guns don't kill people" and references to "spoons make people fat" is not accurate because guns offer the possibility to kill.

Lots of things offer the possibility to kill. If I was crazy, I could kill with quite a few things. There's the knives in the kitchen, chainsaws in the garage, my car, pharmaceuticals, cleaning chemicals, the fire place, etc., etc. Hell, I'm sure you could even electrically kill a person if you wanted. And then there's all the things you could find outside of your home. You know, the average American could give somebody lethal burns with just a can of hair spray and a lighter from the convenience store. Should we outlaw those as well? I know for a fact though, that spoons could be deadly. I saw somebody turn a spoon into a shank once because they were bored.

And do you know why armies use guns instead of cleaning chemicals or spoons? Because guns are really, really good at killing people.

---

Tell it to the Supreme Court.

They have never read the constitution

Don't act stupid, of course they have.

Assumption.

Fact. Look at New York, Chicago, and LA they still have gangs with guns

Just because criminals have guns now does not mean they always will at anything like the same rates. Better controls on guns could well keep them out of the hands of most criminals.

No nation wants to invade the US anyway.

Russia, North Korea, Iran just to name a few.

None of whom want to invade the US. Besides which, if Russia did want to invade, random civilians with guns wouldn't be what stops them.

If the government is that tyrannical then I can't imagine rednecks with small arms will get much done.

The First American Revolution.

Wherein you secured independence from a government half a world away, in the 1700s. You think because that happened, you could defeat the US state and federal police and military forces with armed civilians and some defectors?

Witha good enough strategy we can take down anyone[/color]

And they can do the same, no?

Which is no reason not to have gun-control laws, only a reason to have better ones.

What do you have in mind?

Things like requiring people to be trained in the type of gun they want in the manner they plan to use it, and in how to keep it secure, and requiring them to keep it secure.

[Indira]

If they restrict it then you have no right to bear certain arms.

It said "bear arms", not "bear every type of arms".

Seriously. The fact that I'm taking the pro-gun control side of the argument shows you just how bad your argument is.

Basically this.^^ Although I'm a bit more in favour of gun control

[Central Kadigan]

Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun laws. Forom waht I can tell the second amendment says the government can not restrict gun ownership and what we can and cannot own. It clearly states "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." So I say they have way over stepped their boundaries.

What anti-gun laws? Any idiot and currently buy any military-grade weapon that he wants. When I read the news I see no regulation whatsoever.

Since you quoted the Second Amendment - it clearly links gun ownership to membership in a well-regulated militia. If you want to own a gun and kill people with it, then go join the f'ing army.

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

[Galloism]

Purpose clauses are very useful in their own right, expressing justifications or explanation for the reason X is Y.

The core statement of X is Y is unaffected by their justification, aside from the principle that legislative intent is A Thing.

At the same time, in context, the first amendment makes no such comparison, nor third or fourth, etc. They don't say, in order to protect citizens from tyranny, Congress shall make no law... it simply states. Given that, it seems reasonable to assume the justification is a core part of the statement.

One could make that argument, yes, but given the historical capability of the states to "call up the militia", which basically consisted of all such able-bodied men, the justification and the law stand perfectly reasonable together.

Due to state interest in having a ready and able militia, the right of the people to keep arms is protected.

Unlike the first, third, and fourth, which are primarily made to protect the people's rights, the second protects the state's (by that I mean Virginia, Georgia, etc) interests, using the individual protection as a... method or catalyst if you will... to make it happen.

[Farnhamia]

Purpose clauses are very useful in their own right, expressing justifications or explanation for the reason X is Y.

The core statement of X is Y is unaffected by their justification, aside from the principle that legislative intent is A Thing.

At the same time, in context, the first amendment makes no such comparison, nor third or fourth, etc. They don't say, in order to protect citizens from tyranny, Congress shall make no law... it simply states. Given that, it seems reasonable to assume the justification is a core part of the statement.

I quite agree. Militias were ... a thing in late 18th century America. They were considered a good alternative to standing armies, of which the Founders had a dread. They weren't, except in limited circumstances.

[Rabopari]

At the same time, in context, the first amendment makes no such comparison, nor third or fourth, etc. They don't say, in order to protect citizens from tyranny, Congress shall make no law... it simply states. Given that, it seems reasonable to assume the justification is a core part of the statement.

One could make that argument, yes, but given the historical capability of the states to "call up the militia", which basically consisted of all such able-bodied men, the justification and the law stand perfectly reasonable together.

Due to state interest in having a ready and able militia, the right of the people to keep arms is protected.

Unlike the first, third, and fourth, which are primarily made to protect the people's rights, the second protects the state's (by that I mean Virginia, Georgia, etc) interests, using the individual protection as a... method or catalyst if you will... to make it happen.

so the right to bear arms only applies to the state of virginia? interesting

[Ifreann]

exactly what i said Umbssad

So we should get rid of what our founding fathers made? If you do you will be just as bad as the politicians

Your Founding Fathers created a nation in which women were disenfranchised and blacks weren't even human. Don't pretend they were supermen.

[Galloism]

At the same time, in context, the first amendment makes no such comparison, nor third or fourth, etc. They don't say, in order to protect citizens from tyranny, Congress shall make no law... it simply states. Given that, it seems reasonable to assume the justification is a core part of the statement.

I quite agree. Militias were ... a thing in late 18th century America. They were considered a good alternative to standing armies, of which the Founders had a dread. They weren't, except in limited circumstances.

Actually, the militia was an overall good thing in the states, just not as it was intended.

Because the colonists were, by and large, already familiar operating guns (due to widespread ownership and use), the amount of marksmanship and operations training required of American troops was very small.

Compare this with the British, who, even at that time, did not have widespread individual firearm ownership, and required a shooting drill that I think was what... 18 steps? I can't remember. Something like that.

[Imperializt Russia]

So we should get rid of what our founding fathers made? If you do you will be just as bad as the politicians

Your Founding Fathers created a nation in which women were disenfranchised and blacks weren't even human. Don't pretend they were supermen.

They did eventually get to be three-fifths of a person though.
Oh wait, that's no better.

[Galloism]

One could make that argument, yes, but given the historical capability of the states to "call up the militia", which basically consisted of all such able-bodied men, the justification and the law stand perfectly reasonable together.

Due to state interest in having a ready and able militia, the right of the people to keep arms is protected.

Unlike the first, third, and fourth, which are primarily made to protect the people's rights, the second protects the state's (by that I mean Virginia, Georgia, etc) interests, using the individual protection as a... method or catalyst if you will... to make it happen.

so the right to bear arms only applies to the state of virginia? interesting

No. If that's what you read, I suggest you ask your teacher for some assistance in reading comprehension.

[Imperializt Russia]

I quite agree. Militias were ... a thing in late 18th century America. They were considered a good alternative to standing armies, of which the Founders had a dread. They weren't, except in limited circumstances.

Actually, the militia was an overall good thing in the states, just not as it was intended.

Because the colonists were, by and large, already familiar operating guns (due to widespread ownership and use), the amount of marksmanship and operations training required of American troops was very small.

Compare this with the British, who, even at that time, did not have widespread individual firearm ownership, and required a shooting drill that I think was what... 18 steps? I can't remember. Something like that.

Eighteen sounds a little many, but it was certainly unnecessarily long, to the point that the Revolutionaries were able to attain and sustain significantly higher rates of volley fire.

[Imperializt Russia]

so the right to bear arms only applies to the state of virginia? interesting

No. If that's what you read, I suggest you ask your teacher for some assistance in reading comprehension.

As I recall, however, Virginia has some of the laxest laws in the union as to what firearms a person may own.

[Dooom35796821595]

Well considering the law is 200 years old, maybe it should only cover firearms from that period..?

[Qahadim]

Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun laws. Forom waht I can tell the second amendment says the government can not restrict gun ownership and what we can and cannot own. It clearly states "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." So I say they have way over stepped their boundaries.

What anti-gun laws? Any idiot and currently buy any military-grade weapon that he wants. When I read the news I see no regulation whatsoever.

Since you quoted the Second Amendment - it clearly links gun ownership to membership in a well-regulated militia. If you want to own a gun and kill people with it, then go join the f'ing army.

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

No, I can't. Unless I have hundreds of dollars to pay a tax stamp. Thousands of dollars for the firearm itself. Have the patience to fill out paperwork and wait for confirmation via a background check I can't just wall in pick up an M4 and walk out with it the day I bought it.

No, there is no clear link with militia membership and ownership of firearms. The SCOTUS has ruled that the arms that can be purchased and used by the citizenry must prove to be beneficial to the effectiveness of the civilian militia. Never have they ruled that only the militia may have firearms.

[Rabopari]

so the right to bear arms only applies to the state of virginia? interesting

No. If thats waat you reed, I sugest you ask your teeechar for some assisterance in reeding commieprehension.

like you can spell?

[Imperializt Russia]

Well considering the law is 200 years old, maybe it should only cover firearms from that period..?

Free speech is 200 years old, so now it only covers shouting in the streets and telegrams.
Want to criticise the US government on the internet? noep.

[Galloism]

Well considering the law is 200 years old, maybe it should only cover firearms from that period..?

And freedom of speech shouldn't cover radio, tv, or the Internet.

[Galloism]

No. If thats waat you reed, I sugest you ask your teeechar for some assisterance in reeding commieprehension.

like you can spell?

What is this?

I don't even...

[Farnhamia]

I quite agree. Militias were ... a thing in late 18th century America. They were considered a good alternative to standing armies, of which the Founders had a dread. They weren't, except in limited circumstances.

Actually, the militia was an overall good thing in the states, just not as it was intended.

Because the colonists were, by and large, already familiar operating guns (due to widespread ownership and use), the amount of marksmanship and operations training required of American troops was very small.

Compare this with the British, who, even at that time, did not have widespread individual firearm ownership, and required a shooting drill that I think was what... 18 steps? I can't remember. Something like that.

Perhaps so. I do still think that militias & the right to keep & bear arms are inextricably entwined. Of course, the Roberts Court disagrees with me (you'd think they'd just ask), so that's how things are now. Guns & gun violence are going to be problems for this country for years to come.

[Enadail]

What anti-gun laws? Any idiot and currently buy any military-grade weapon that he wants. When I read the news I see no regulation whatsoever.

Since you quoted the Second Amendment - it clearly links gun ownership to membership in a well-regulated militia. If you want to own a gun and kill people with it, then go join the f'ing army.

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

No, I can't. Unless I have hundreds of dollars to pay a tax stamp. Thousands of dollars for the firearm itself. Have the patience to fill out paperwork and wait for confirmation via a background check I can't just wall in pick up an M4 and walk out with it the day I bought it.

No, there is no clear link with militia membership and ownership of firearms. The SCOTUS has ruled that the arms that can be purchased and used by the citizenry must prove to be beneficial to the effectiveness of the civilian militia. Never have they ruled that only the militia may have firearms.

Likewise, they haven't ruled that the right to bear arms is unlimited, which is what Australian Antarctica was saying. The response needs to be in context to that.

[Galloism]

Actually, the militia was an overall good thing in the states, just not as it was intended.

Because the colonists were, by and large, already familiar operating guns (due to widespread ownership and use), the amount of marksmanship and operations training required of American troops was very small.

Compare this with the British, who, even at that time, did not have widespread individual firearm ownership, and required a shooting drill that I think was what... 18 steps? I can't remember. Something like that.

Perhaps so. I do still think that militias & the right to keep & bear arms are inextricably entwined. Of course, the Roberts Court disagrees with me (you'd think they'd just ask), so that's how things are now. Guns & gun violence are going to be problems for this country for years to come.

I'm of the opinion that firearms ownership and violence are only related tangentially at best. I've read literally hundreds of studies, and meta studies of those studies, and the answer is we flat out dont fucking know if they're related. The data is very conflicting.

I personally feel our effort could be much better focused on something we know will work: reducing poverty, desperation, and make a real social safety net.

[Rabopari]

like you can spell?

What is this?

I don't even...