Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Unicorns that fart fairy floss and poo cupcakes and those scary Pokemon go monsters everywhere nowdays

a reply to: DBCowboy

Festering? no, a cancer soar that never goes away and will end killing you at the end.

That is what she is.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: superman2012

Your opinion is opposed to the constitution to begin with. You, not having the rights protected by the constitution, have no understanding of what is being given up, therefore it has no value to you. It does have value to those who are protected by the constitution. It in no way makes your opinion of less worth, it explains why you hold no value in gun ownership and refer to gun owners as cowards.

This is a great post. Someone who finally explains it plainly in a concise and thoughtful manner. Refreshing

While I do understand your point, could you also explain to me what value owning a gun under the constitution gives you personally? I wish I was a mod so I could applaud your post. I'm really just trying to understand as the idea is so foreign to me and all others in your camp (so far) have resorted to school yard tactics while trying to discuss this.

a reply to: lordcomac
Good post. I don't carry myself, but I know those who do, and you're right. I'm one of the few that even knows of it. Lets hope they never have to pull it from their holster.

a reply to: superman2012

Waiting for the US to catch up (in gun control) with the rest of the civilized world so we can stop reading about the massacres in clubs, schools, malls, etc.

There's a big part of this that people who hold views similar to yours just don't get. The population in the US is comprised of a very large segments of its population that are anything BUT civilized. Would you want to walk down the streets of Beirut in the 1980's unarmed, or rather, would you have left Beirut.

Problem with the US is..........most of us law abiding citizens can't leave, all the while the feral population of gang bangers, nuts, druggies, etc. circulate through the population wreaking havoc and death. The members of MS 13 won't be affected by draconian gun laws. Neither will the Crips or the Bloods, or the Mexican Mafia. This isn't pre-jihad France or Sweden. In point of fact, the US each day comes more to resemble South Africa.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: uncommitted
That's not strictly true in the case of the 2nd now is it?

It is 'strictly true' for the entire document, Madison et. al. were very clear on this point.

Just for the hell of it, concealed carry is what a private citizen can do, not what the government can or cannot do, it grants a citizen that right in states that allow it. Logically of course, that means an agent of the government cannot arrest them for carrying a concealed weapon, but the amendment grants the rights to a citizen, i.e., what they can do.

The fact that the majority of amendments happened long after the deaths of the authors of the constitution kind of invalidates any total confirmation that they would have seen each amendment as being true to the spirit of what they originally wrote - that's the job of very well paid people who argue that is the case.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.

All the guns except the ones that belong to "them" right?

I said all the guns.

I love you

Harry

'Take all the guns.'
Do tell who would be doing the 'taking'.

You would be a good citizen and comply with the unarmed Peace officer when the amendment is repealed.

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

Okay let's take a look at the wording:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Logic would dictate that in order to HAVE a "well regulated Militia", comprised of the PEOPLE, being necessary to the security of a free state, the PEOPLE would have be armed and have access to armaments in order for ANYONE OF THE PEOPLE to be able to form a militia if need be.

That's why the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The founders were VERY smart individuals who understood governance.

I mean seriously....you think an oppressive and tyrannical government that has all the guns is going to open the armory and hand out weapons that can be used against them???

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!

originally posted by: uncommitted
...but the amendment grants the rights to a citizen, i.e., what they can do.

Incorrect. The Constitution presupposes that we already have these unalienable rights. It places a strict limit on what the government can do to curtail those rights.

The fact that the majority of amendments happened long after the deaths of the authors of the constitution kind of invalidates any total confirmation that they would have seen each amendment as being true to the spirit of what they originally wrote - that's the job of very well paid people who argue that is the case.

If that were the case they would not have incorporated the mechanism to alter the Constitution.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

Okay let's take a look at the wording:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!

Amendments can be repealed. It has happened before...

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.

All the guns except the ones that belong to "them" right?

I said all the guns.

I love you

Harry

'Take all the guns.'
Do tell who would be doing the 'taking'.

You would be a good citizen and comply with the unarmed Peace officer when the amendment is repealed.

This would be where the plan degrades into a fairy tale.

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Amendments can be repealed. It has happened before...

Amendment, singular. And it was a case of the government realizing that removing something from the public led to far more damaging results than leaving it be in the first place.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: superman2012

Waiting for the US to catch up (in gun control) with the rest of the civilized world so we can stop reading about the massacres in clubs, schools, malls, etc.

There's a big part of this that people who hold views similar to yours just don't get. The population in the US is comprised of a very large segments of its population that are anything BUT civilized. Would you want to walk down the streets of Beirut in the 1980's unarmed, or rather, would you have left Beirut.

Problem with the US is..........most of us law abiding citizens can't leave, all the while the feral population of gang bangers, nuts, druggies, etc. circulate through the population wreaking havoc and death. The members of MS 13 won't be affected by draconian gun laws. Neither will the Crips or the Bloods, or the Mexican Mafia. This isn't pre-jihad France or Sweden. In point of fact, the US each day comes more to resemble South Africa.

That's a big part of what I don't understand. Something needs to change, but no one wants change. It is getting worse and worse in the US and everyone seems to want more and more guns. I am not a big fan of peoples rights being taken away, but what use is this "right"? It seems to me that it is outdated. Of course, I don't really have a pony in this race so I am willing to be educated on both sides. It just seems that the more guns you have, the better and bigger guns you have, the more people will be dying by guns...

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: uncommitted

The phrase "reasonable regulation" is totally the opposite of "shall not be infringed". So please explain to me how you justify that thought while maintaining the protections afforded by the amendment? I honestly want to know.

See my posts above. The 2nd in America is for an armed militia - end of, full stop, no more mentioned. Where is that infringed? Is there an armed militia, or multiple people who buy guns for their own purposes - either for sport, self defence or frankly because they like guns? I'm not particularly arguing either way, but I find it strange that without ANY detail whatsoever people on this thread think that (as usual on ATS) any type of proposed gun regulation would equal taking all guns away. Weird, like an alcoholic being told that hours in which alcohol can be served may change and equating that with a return to prohibition.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Finally! Take all the guns!

Use your brain not a gun.

All the guns except the ones that belong to "them" right?

I said all the guns.

I love you

Harry

'Take all the guns.'
Do tell who would be doing the 'taking'.

You would be a good citizen and comply with the unarmed Peace officer when the amendment is repealed.

This would be where the plan degrades into a fairy tale.

While the pro-gun lot spins fairytales about why they need guns.... LOL Tyranny LOL

a reply to: superman2012

It is getting worse and worse in the US and everyone seems to want more and more guns.

Do you have proof to this? The FBI stats suggest violent crime including gun crime have been decreasing for decades. It is now at one of it lowest point in decades even as gun in circulation is at the most ever.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: uncommitted
...but the amendment grants the rights to a citizen, i.e., what they can do.

Incorrect. The Constitution presupposes that we already have these unalienable rights. It places a strict limit on what the government can do to curtail those rights.

The fact that the majority of amendments happened long after the deaths of the authors of the constitution kind of invalidates any total confirmation that they would have seen each amendment as being true to the spirit of what they originally wrote - that's the job of very well paid people who argue that is the case.

If that were the case they would not have incorporated the mechanism to alter the Constitution.

The constitution presupposed no such thing, and no right is inalienable. All amendments seem to be to further define what the authors of the constitution actually meant - usually when someone wants to expand or in some way change the only available definition to meet their own needs.

a reply to: EternalShadow
If it really were to oppose a tyrannical government, what chance do you think the public has against a trained army?
I believe that people use that wording as an excuse. If they started going door to door collecting weapons, who is going to say no when they have a group of soldiers in front of them and their family behind them?

The Rambo mentality will not last in the face of reality. The fact is they are trained, they have better weapons and they follow orders.

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: shooterbrody

Conversely, what part of "well regulated" do people not get? You don't get to pick and choose what words of the 2nd amendment have meaning and which ones don't.

Okay let's take a look at the wording:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!

Amendments can be repealed. It has happened before...

Then get ready for a Revolution if the 2nd is repealed. Period.

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: superman2012

It is getting worse and worse in the US and everyone seems to want more and more guns.

Do you have proof to this? The FBI stats suggest violent crime including gun crime have been decreasing for decades. It is now at one of it lowest point in decades even as gun in circulation is at the most ever.

Correlation does not imply causation. Yes crime is the lowest ever but Gun circulation doesn't have much to do with it.