any rights whatsoever OUTSIDE of a well regulated militia.

Then each state could decide which ones want to be ravaged by guns and which ones wont be.

It is similar to the Voter ID issue.

It is unconstitutional, not to mention unnecessary, to require ID to vote. Yet the discussion now isnt about that fact but WHICH ID we are going to require.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

The Bill of Rights, is a list of Individual rights, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment, which is a restricting on the people?

WOW... Makes PERFECT Sense, NOT...

"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

Now who gets the food? The people, or a well balanced breakfast???

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a restriction on the Federal Government to prevent interference with the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that precedes the formation of our Government.

It sucks to always be wrong and be corrected

You are no more "on the side of life" than anyone else here. Gun control is not the moral high ground, despite its claims. First, even the CDC recognizes the efficacy of armed self-defense:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

Second, imagine an America that has eliminated legal gun ownership for civilians and has managed to round up all the previously legal guns. There will still be guns in the hands of cops, criminals, and the paid defenders of the rich and powerful. Why is it that you wish to privilege any of these groups over ordinary citizens? I'm not talking about overthrowing governments or any of those red herrings; I'm talking about the ability to protect one's person with a tool suitable for that purpose. Are their lives worth more than yours or mine?

Do you think that the lower classes should have to "take one for the team" when victimized by violent crime, while the upper classes and their privileged protectors should have a chance at an effective self-defense? Don't you think we have enough social stratification as it is?

Limits government infringement on certain rights that the founding fathers believed so important that those rights were memorialized in our governing document. In fact, James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, started with 39 proposed amendments, and the Second Amendment was one of those to survive the whittling process. The Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That seems fairly clear to me. I'm not a fan of limiting the rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country.

to the mere mention of gun legislation or control.

Therefore the gun enthusiasts must fear something if they no longer have a gun, I wonder what that is?

I mean i am getting more responses to my simple statement, in one afternoon, than I get in a week combined on all other topics

HAve to tell you, FEAR is what that is all about

Stop projecting...

Crime is at the lowest point in decades DESPITE the increase of gun sales.

It's the gun controllers that are truly afraid, people are seeing through their lies and their fact free arguments. They are finding themselves increasingly marginalized and they can't deal with that.

Do you not "fear" legislation thratening to de facto close reproductive clinics? Do you not fear a nearing wildfire in your area? Do you not fear a cop car rushing up to you, and the officer with his weapon drawn? Do you not fear awakening in the night to the smell of smoke and seeing a blue haze in your bedroom? To deny the routine fears of the day is a sign of whole alienation or a false sense of macho. What is your fear of fear?

for the most part.

I do fear radical rightwingers, there is a name for them actually, and they do want to kill liberals, doctors, etc.

Most people who own guns are fearful of something they think the gun is going to help them with.

That is simply a fact, is it not? You are basically admitting that in this post, right?

I have had gun folks here tell me time and again they fear nothing, I dont believe them.

I think owning guns for fun, sport, is certainly part of the formula, but the more adamant a person is about their gun, the more likely they fear something they think the gun protects them from.

I am certain there are righty's out there right now, maybe even reading this, who are dying to shoot a liberal.

The 2A gives the government the right to arms the militia, i.e. the military.

Without such guarantee the government could call up rhe militia but prohibit them from being armed.

Yes?

BTW fully agree on voter ID. It goes to show that if an abrogation of a right it put in place, that becomes the accepted norm. Then further abrogations are debated, rather than removing the original offense.

If we say there is a constitutional right to own guns as we now do, then we accept with that the reality of these almost daily shootings as a collateral damage. As Jeb Bush said and I think many gun owners will agree with, shit happens.
There seems to be no middle ground. We have accepted auto accident deaths because we need to drive and we try to make cars as safe as possible. Gun deaths are different I think because we don't need guns. The gun lobby wants us to accept gun deaths as we accept auto accident deaths.
No we don't have to accept the idea that there is no middle ground. We can all live without guns. We should move to ban guns.

Doesnt help that many, not all, who love guns, are generally immature people to begin with.

What have you done to achieve your goals that doesn't involve a keyboard?

I've found they tend to get really cranky when you start discussing the "real world" efforts.

Or they just disappear, which has a value unto itself.

Running for office? Donating your money? Or are you just another keyboard commando?

And I'll take your answer to mean you've done nothing constructive to further your goals other then post on the internet about what you want.

That way you can feel that you "care" and don't have to actually get up to go to a gun control rally, attend a town hall on the issues, or heaven forbid, actually write a check to support your supposed principles.

Now it seems they are too lazy to even be bothered posting any response. So much for the phony dialog they keep demanding.

There's a good reason that Brady membership is in the hundreds, maybe a thousand and Bloomberg's Mom's Demand Action about the same. For a while there, the Mom's were claiming anyone that tagged their Facebook page was a member, but that got exposed pretty quick.

The Bloomberg Mayors Against Illegal Guns just kind of quietly went away as many of the mayors lost their elections or went up the river for fraud, child molestation and other felonies. So that membership is defunct.

There was a great post here a few days ago that summarized it. Wish I could remember who posted it for attribution.

Something like; "When tragedy strikes, gun owners head for town halls, into the street and get out their checkbooks. Gun controllers head for their keyboards."

I noticed that when I went to the legislature to protest against proposed gun control laws more then 90% of the people there were pro gun. We took a vacation day or a day off without pay for some and stood in line in the cold before the doors opened at 10 am and were there until 3 or 4 in the morning of the next day. There were so many of us that we filled 2 or 3 overflow rooms in addition to the main room.

Zoning board hearings for new ranges being built.

2 or 3 Moms Demand Action people were there, they showed up late, demanded front row seats, demanded a spot on the already full comment roster and got it.

But they were poor spokespeople, reading prepared statements, couldn't answer any board member questions and didn't have their zoning or gun law facts straight. Plus they were outnumbered at least 30 to 1.

After the board voted they tried to demand another meeting, privately with the board.

what a charming group they are

Just like the gun controllers here, in the real world gun controllers aren't very good public speakers, they tend to lie a lot and rarely have their facts straight.

Over the years here we've noticed that a lot of these "keyboard kommandos" are all talk and no commitment.

The majority of them don't really join or support the gun control groups they promote, other than "voting for gun control candidates". It's always Bloomberg, Joyce Foundation or somebody else job to actually write a check for a paid lobbyist to go out and do the grunt work.

There's a reason they don't get anything done. No infrastructure, no real grass roots commitment and an imaginary groundswell that "supports" them.

Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Apparently the victims of violence in the inner cities isn't worth their attention or effort.

Quoth yours truly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=176645

In a few days all the penis references and "ban them all" types will find a new piece of shiny tinfoil and wander off.

The pro 2nd people will still be going to the range, teaching new people, spending money and time to support their hobby.

But at this time it appears there are not enough Americans to vote yes in 38 States to change the Constitution so guns will remain.

There must be a course for journalism students where thry are trained to be against the Second, and where news events are presented in a doctrinnaire anti-gun manner. I'm sure MJ knows the phenomenon of a movement that won't, which is why they must from time to time write stuff like this out of sheer frustration. In the end they should also know that mobilization takes place over time, and gun-controllers have had the time, the money, the MSM, the elites. The magazine would do well to re-consider what the real problems are with (I presume) spectacularly violent events. I presume because I have yet to see a good definition from the elites as to what they want to accomplish. Stopping school shootings? Lessening the daily grind of murders in big cities? I'm not sure because most attention in DU and in other media is focused on the...

Former.