Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Do you have a point?

You are reinforcing my assertion that those that call for rebellion and such are a bit off.

originally posted by: uncommitted
No, At the time the original 2nd amendment was authored, bearing concealed arms would have been highly impractical (ever hear a mention of 'is that a musket in your pocket or are you pleased to see me?' from around that era?) and would have been more dangerous to the bearer than any potential threat to a free state. So why would they have presupposed otherwise?

Whether or not it would have been 'impractical' at the time is irrelevant. You continue to revert to this logical fallacy of claiming that just because the Constitution does not implicitly say something it is therefore impermissible or outside the rights of the private citizen to enjoy. The Constitution, once again, is not a list of things we can do and was never intended as such.

Secondly, the right has been legally challenged and won on several cases and therefore is not inalienable -

www.law.cornell.edu...

That suggests a precedent for future 'reasonable regulation'. Not sure why you think otherwise.

Frankly I do not care if someone open carries or concealed carries, as long as they CAN carry. If certain states want to say it is one or the other I am fine. It is when they say it is NEITHER that I have an issue since that is infringing on the overall right to bear arms.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: introvert

Never say never, people in this country are feed up with government, social issues, inequality, racism, prejudice and many other manufactured and none manufactured issues to stay sitting calm at home if the opportunity arise.

You do not speak for the people of this country. You speak for yourself.

Your opinion only relates to a small section of people in this country and it does not even reflect the thoughts of us 2nd amendment supporters.

It is your thoughts and generalizations that are a threat to my 2nd amendment right. Stop making us all look like fools.

a reply to: introvert

Really, introvert, really, so you think that most people in this nation are all against guns, against chaos, rebellion, pro government and anti constitutional rights? and is never forces behind the scenes creating situations so they can cash on mayhem.

Oh, dear, you have a lot to learn my friend.

a reply to: introvert

I back him...
MORE back me than JUST you.
AKA .....pluralty

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Do you have a point?

You are reinforcing my assertion that those that call for rebellion and such are a bit off.

You mean just like the founding fathers that drafted the constitution?

Yea they were "off" weren't they? lol

a reply to: introvert

If you can't read it why ask?

What's funny is Trump and Hillary have the same position on gun control, but his supporters refuse to accept the fact that they've been duped.

#shouldvepickedcruz

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Shamrock6

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.

The part where liberals put modern definitions on a document written in the 18th century and then ask why people don't like it.

Could you show me again where the words 'concealed carry' are written in that 18th century document? Not sure I can remember seeing that anywhere, or where people on a terrorist watch list should still be allowed a gun, because, you know, they are American. Could you point that out?

Sure, I'll do that right after you show me where in the document it says anything about not allowing concealed carry. Can you show me that? Could you point that out for me?

It also doesn't say you can't buy a rocket launcher big enough to blow up the moon. There is lots it doesn't say. Proof that it needs updating.

And I didn't say that it did, did I? You and the other member seem to be confused and making things up then asking me questions based off what you've made up.

Pro-tip: it is updated every time a new law is passed that regulates firearms. Every single one of those is an "update" to the amendment. It won't be amended in full any time soon, because at one end you have weirdos that think only the government should have firearms because it knows best, at the other end you have weirdos that want to own a rocket big enough to blow up the moon, and both of you are too ignorant and stupid to listen to anybody in the middle, much less try to win us over to your side without resorting to name calling and other childish tactics like stamping your feet.

Not exactly sure why you are throwing a virtual temper tantrum. All I was doing was pointing out that it needs to be updated with very specific language for the 21st century.
Pro tip: No reason to call people names because they either lack a full understanding of whatever point you were trying to make, or they disagree with you.

It is funny that you get mad about name calling like you just didn't do it 3 times in one sentence!!

bahahaha

I'm glad it amused you, since that was the intent in making the point. The extremes at either end of the debate have their heads so far up their own asses they seem to forget they're the ones in the minority.

Nice of you to ignore everything about how every gun law passed is in effect an "update" to the amendment. I can't imagine why you had to focus on the mockery made of extremists rather than the actual subject matter.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: uncommitted
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.

It most certainly does and you have a very poor grasp of what the Constitution's intentions are. It is a document limiting the power of government, not the private citizen. It clearly describes what the government cannot do and does not list anywhere what the private citizen can or cannot do.

Madison, a Jeffersonian Democrat, clearly understood the importance of placing serious limitations on the government's ability to curtail the rights of the private citizen.

Go on then, tell me why you think the original 2nd presupposed all of the other additions that have been piled on it. I'm agnostic to the whole gun law thing, but I don't agree with you at all. conceal carry gives a private citizen the right to do so - does it not? That logically means they won't be arrested for doing so, but it means it agrees foremost with the citizens rights. I'm only using this example to prove a point.

You seem to be stating that everything written in the original constitution is still absolutely valid and unchanged since its writing in the same way that fundamentalist Christians will say everything said in the Bible is divine and cannot be argued - I happen to think they are wrong as well.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: imsoconfused
a reply to: superman2012

So your not American? Why would you think your opinion even matters at all?

Bahahaha....this guy.

No, you are right, my not American.

Why do you think my opinion does not matter? Is it because I brought up some good points or because you don't respect anyone else's opinion on the matter? If the latter is the case, why bother posting on an internet forum? Why not meet at a local coffee shop?

No I think your opinion does not matter, Because it does not matter. Worry about your own countries problems Im sure there are plenty to go bitch about.

lol, I don't really care what you believe about my opinion.

You post on a public forum, you get public opinions. In my opinion, people that own guns for reasons other than hunting, or target shooting, are all cowards. Scared of the big bad guy who might have a gun, so you get a better bigger gun.

Surely you're not resorting to name calling and mockery to try and make your point that guns are bad outside an arbitrary list of reasons you've decided on, are you?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: uncommitted
No, At the time the original 2nd amendment was authored, bearing concealed arms would have been highly impractical (ever hear a mention of 'is that a musket in your pocket or are you pleased to see me?' from around that era?) and would have been more dangerous to the bearer than any potential threat to a free state. So why would they have presupposed otherwise?

Whether or not it would have been 'impractical' at the time is irrelevant. You continue to revert to this logical fallacy of claiming that just because the Constitution does not implicitly say something it is therefore impermissible or outside the rights of the private citizen to enjoy. The Constitution, once again, is not a list of things we can do and was never intended as such.

Secondly, the right has been legally challenged and won on several cases and therefore is not inalienable -

www.law.cornell.edu...

That suggests a precedent for future 'reasonable regulation'. Not sure why you think otherwise.

Frankly I do not care if someone open carries or concealed carries, as long as they CAN carry. If certain states want to say it is one or the other I am fine. It is when they say it is NEITHER that I have an issue since that is infringing on the overall right to bear arms.

I understand, as long as any reasonable regulation is reasonable or favourable to you, you don't mind - that's fine, just be honest and say it.

originally posted by: superman2012
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.

There is a growing number of police officers and military men/women who have said they will not confiscate guns from Americans. So there's going to be a division there as well. I think you underestimate our cops and soldiers.

originally posted by: uncommitted
I understand, as long as any reasonable regulation is reasonable or favourable to you, you don't mind - that's fine, just be honest and say it.

Any law that infringes upon the right to bear arms is unreasonable. Saying you can carry concealed or carry open is not an infringement in my opinion because you still are bearing arms.

Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

Hey Hillary ?

Want to borrow by copy of the constitution ?

Because you sure havent' READ IT.

The second makes NO mention of the regulation of arms.

The 4th talks about unreasonable searchs and seizures.

The 5th talks about NO PERSON shall be held answerable to a capital or other wise infamous crime.

It further talks about being tried for the same crime twice.

The 8th talks about cruel and unusual punishments.

The other talks about DUE process and crimes be proven in courts of LAW.

The 14 same EXACTLY the same thing.

CLinton doesn't know WHAT THE HELL she is talking about.

Since we can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we abide by, I choose to ignore the parts that grant Congress the ability to make laws and levy taxes.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: superman2012
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.

There is a growing number of police officers and military men/women who have said they will not confiscate guns from Americans. So there's going to be a division there as well. I think you underestimate our cops and soldiers.

You mean the people that swore an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from foreign and domestic threats? And ACTUALLY meant it?

HERE: BOB OWENS...Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.

While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.

Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.

Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.

Some of these defectors will be true “operators,” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.

Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.

If we’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If we’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, we’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues we’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.

It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.

Yet, this is the future we face if the power-mad among us are not soundly defeated at the ballot box before they affect more “change” than we, the People, are willing to surrender to would-be tyrants.

Regulation = infringement

A national traitor through and through.

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.

Read the effing amendment.

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.

It spoke about TWO separate but equal things.

The states to have militias being able to be combat effective.

The RIGHT of the people to have something to shoot with.