2nd Amendment is Under Attack!! Fight Back!!

That's ok. Even if Democrats believe in the Bill of Rights they ignore it along with the rest of the Constitution if it suits them. The only time they trot out that document is when it suits their agenda.

Great tune.

The second amendment both protects the other amendments for private citizens, and threatens them at the same time...

Typical NRA drivel - meaningless slogans that appeal to those unable or unwilling to engage in critical thinking.

"Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote".

Ben Franklin

Bravo

Kinda like the "War on Drugs" eh?

SHALLICK
Excuse me. But this White House uses the first amendment to protect flag burning, to protect pornography, to ban school prayer. Why when the second amendment clearly says that the federal government will not infringe upon a citizens...
TOBY
Because it doesn’t...
SHALLICK
...right to keep and bear arms...
TOBY
It doesn’t barely say that.
SHALLICK
Toby!
TOBY
In fact it doesn’t say that at all. The only way it says that at all is if you remove some words from it.
SHALLICK
Oh, look. Will you...?
TOBY
It says a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state...the government shall not infringe. The words regulated and militia are in the first sentence. I don’t think the Framer’s were thinking of three guys in a Dodge Durango.
SHALLICK
Well, you don’t really know what the Framers were thinking, do you?
TOBY
No. But I do know that if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you’ve got a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year and they had 112. Do you think it’s because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it’s because those guys have gun control laws.

THE WEST WING
Episode 2.13 -- “Bartlet's Third State of the Union”
Original Airdate: February 7, 2001, 9:00 PM EST
TELEPLAY BY: AARON SORKIN
STORY BY: ALLISON ABNER & DEE DEE MYERS
DIRECTED BY: CHRISTOPHER MISIANO
The West Wing and all its characters are properties of Aaron Sorkin, John Wells
Production, Warner Brothers Television, and NBC. No copyright infringement is intended.

Is there a point to quoting a televisions show. Don't tell me you are attempting to use dialogue from a fictional piece as justification for anything???????

I feel pretty much the same, although I do own two guns.

that's my exact feelings too.

so for the sake of the argument i rather get on the "shut the fuck up, you don't need an AK" side, as opposed to "let's all have all guns" of the discussion.

there's no reason to own a semi-automatic weapon, at all, and i've never heard of machine guns or automatic clips saving a situation from harm, they're usually connected with bad things-- so i'm fine trying to restrict that.

so i guess i think we should make better rules of compliance, or maybe amend the 2nd amendment-- but it's fine to have the guns-- in the abstract sense.

Up to this point I have never liked any of the comments I have seen from you. This would be the first time I have seen you say something that did not seem to be straight off of a right wing website.

This comment was one that we can agree on. I see no purpose in owning an AK or a sniper rifle. 30 round clips for handguns are meant for one thing, carnage, period.

So Warren, there are points on which you and the left leaning can agree. It's a start!

I also agree with you about Keyes, the guys got something wrong with him. I will vote you up just for that alone ;-))))))

If you want to see people get ticked off put me on a right wing discussion board discussing religion and social issues. Regarding annoying statements, for me right behind "Pay more taxes" is "If you don't take Jesus Christ as your savior you are praying to a false god." I'm a limited government, states rights fiscal conservative. After that I'm a libertarian. I say this with the belief individual liberty does not allow a person harm someone else and/or society.

Bows are great but sorta difficult to double tap with. Personally I prefer a 1911 for self defense.

You're the most reasonable gun nut I've ever seen in threads like this on current.

I, more or less, agree with you 100%.

"I think we should forget about more gun control. What we need is bullet control. That's right. There are at least 100— 200 million guns in this country. I own three of them We cannot control the supply of guns in this country but we can control the supply of ammunition. Buying bullets should not be easier than buying a plane ticket. We should license the purchase of handgun ammunition. There should be a clear, ID record of every handgun ammo purchase. We're in the 21st Century, homicide detectives should be able to trace every fired bullet back to the buyer in minutes."
#707 "The Debate" The Live Debate Episode
Written by: Lawrence O'Donnell Jr., Directed by: Alex Graves
Takes Place:
Broadcast: Sunday, November 6, 2005

It all depends on who you point that thing at.

Read up on the American Revolution - check out Carl Van Doren's work. The Tories and Royalists we were fighting were overwhelmingly Conservatives and the Revolutionaries Liberals. The tea partiers in the REAL tea party were Yippee Radicals and the tea they were throwing overboard represented Corporate control acting through government.

Say what?

And "conservatives" today? They're really plutocrats and totalitarians masquerading in conservative garb. Their lie machine has hoodwinked good Americans into believing they are "conservative." They're not. They're just a bunch of greedy, murderous liars and crooks who'll tell any lie they think they need. They want ALL your money and don't care if you or your children die as a result. When it suits their purposes, they'll even just kill them somewhere like Iraq under the flag of KBR or Exxon.

It all depends on who you're pointing that thing at. It better not be me, friend. Time to re-think the whole enchilada.

I keep telling you this is not the document I base my right to self defense by means of a fire arm on.

The blind leading the blind.

Your first paragraph actually pertains to those who would remove inherent civil rights from people thereby making them victims. Those who remove from people the means of self defense have the blood on their hands. A "sensible" gun policy means I have a gun and my family will not be harmed.

Sorry, but a gun in your hands or in your house simply means you and your family are more likely to be a victim of gun violence.

You are incorrect.

the statistics don't lie cowboy

Surely you jest? Statistical manipulation is a vocation elevated to an Art form.

Most of the Peace Officers I know understand that preventing a LAW ABIDING citizen from carrying a concealed weapon will do NOTHING to prevent a crook from doing so.

OK. Now explain how this relates to the 2nd amendment, please.
I agree with you, but don't see it as a second amendment issue; I see it as more fear-mongering and scare tactics.
I also like to have backup when it comes to accusations regarding some political group being behind some action being taken.

A frankly biased radio show is not evidence. I still don't see a second amendment attack.
I recognize a concern on your part and others, but I don't see where alarmist headlines and lines in the sand are the way to handle this. It is an issue better decided by the voters, I'm assuming the Attorney General is an appointed position in New Jersey, and the courts. Polarization rather than dialogue seems to be the preferred method of deciding issues today. Issues which really require clear thinking and even the possibility of compromise on both sides. Once it's reached the stage where it's; you're either with us or you're against us, all room for discussion is out the window.

I'm sure that most of the Peace Officers you know realize that crooks were all law abiding citizens before they committed their first crime.

The Constitution guarantees the right to KEEP [on or in your property] and BEAR [carry openly] firearms. Even in Colonial times, the carrying of concealed weapons was not allowed in some places, and would label you as a criminal, else why the concealment?

In Georgia, you will get arrested for open carry in about half the places you can go - only with a concealed carry permit, i.e. police permission, can you exercise your "rights".

You are correct.

Everyone is a law abiding citizen before they committed their first crime. How about we take away all cars because all motor vehicle offenders began as good, law abiding drivers or just perhaps jail everyone to prevent anyone from committing a crime.

As usual Paratus, you have no grasp of basic reasoning skills, so you jump right for a slippery slope argument.

My point, which flew over your head, was that Radical Centrist presented a false dichotomy. "Law abiding citizens" and "criminals" are not two separate species, they are all simply human beings. If you think that somehow you can make laws where "Law abiding citizens" have access to guns and "criminals" do not then you are very mistaken.

Sorry dude. My reasoning skills are light years above yours, all we need to do is to read your posts to realize that. Your creation of a "slippery slope" counter will not work and you know it. You are the one who brought up the nexus between crooks and law abiding citizens. It applies in other examples even though you cannot grasp the concept.

Not only do you have no reasoning skills, you also lack basic reading comprehension.

Each comment reefers to a comment before it. If you knew how to read, you would have seen that I was not the one who brought up "Law abiding citizens" and "criminals", it was Radical Centrist.

As I already said.

Now it's twice.

Yes, all anyone has to do is read your posts, and mine, to tell who has a beter grasp of logic.

But first, you would have to know how to read.

I guess that's why everyone votes your comments down.

Has this case been argued for merits yet?

I do not believe so, but I did send a friend who is familiar with the case an email requesting the current status of the case. I know on the 15th or so of last month the State filed a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed their reply on the 18th.

This is not my understanding of the 2nd Amendment. My Juris doctorate comers from Baylor Law School, and yours?

Unless you are a member of the USSC, ultimately your JD is as meaningful as anyone's.

Appeal to unproven authority argument.

Totally lame! Making some appeal to your supposed credentials is ridiculous. Offer evidence or stfu.

The Second Amendment does not give permission for anything. It states that the right to keep and bear arms exists and that right will not be infringed upon. There is no permission involved.

I agree that there are more Law School graduation these days than you can shake a stick at. That being said savroD's understanding of the 2nd Amendment would be OBVIOUSLY flawed to anyone with even a modicum of Legal Training.

The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

"A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

that shore don't apply to whut's happened in New Jersey and most of them other states where peepul is packin' heat."

Why do people keep bringing this up as though it's a legitimate argument against citizens' rights to own firearms. The Supreme Court has already ruled against it. Get over it.

SCOTUS sorta messed up on Plessy v. Ferguson, but eventually they got it correct. They might get 2nd Amendment correct too

I believe the ruling was 5 to 4. This indicates that there is still room for discussion. It is a very poorly worded amendment which gun right advocates alway skip over the meaning of the first clause. In fact, the USSC has stated that "well regulated" is pertinent to the right to own, making it a separate issue to pack that heat in public or over the types of weapons that have legitimate usage.

No one is allowed to own grenades or tanks, or RPG's etc. A permit to carry a concealed weapon does not prevent one from owning one. Let's keep the emotion over reaction down to a minimum.

My personal belief is that the Second Amendment is antiquate. We do not live on a frontier anymore with the need to protector our homes or to provide food. It is unreasonable to think that a few handguns or even hunting rifles are going to be successful against a head to head match up with armor or airpower. It will not leave us completely at the mercy of a run away government. There is more than one way to bring down a dictator. Open armed conflict is one of the least successful ways and will most likely create massive casualties on the non government side.

Stop listening to the claptrap of the NRA. All they really want to do is sell guns.

Which part is it that you don't think is a legitimate argument-

The fact that the 2nd Amendment actually says "well regulated militia" and the gun loby ignores that fact, or the fact that New Jersey has way more guns than it could ever need and that does NOT lower crime, it raises it?

because frankly, both sound damn legit to me.

More guns in Jersey than all of the Middle East? No way.

ThatCrazyLibertarian told me it was true.

"It's easier to simply buy one under the table and keep it a secret."

Then it must be so.