Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[Sean Renaud]

No it doesn't. It doesn't mention an individual right. That was the problem. The states demanded the right be codified by amendment. You need to read Heller, and Bruen in from start to finish, the history of the Amendment and the country in regard to arms is explained in great detail.

I have, long time ago mind you, but I have. If it was meant to be an individual right there is no need at all to mention the militia, well regulated or othewise.

Besides I'm still not seeing how you justify that I can't buy grenades or claymore mines. Given how stand your ground/Castle laws work once those brats step foot on my lawn because their ball got away they became fair game.

 

[Gamine67]

I go to sleep every night in fear the King will quarter soldiers in my home against my will.

Fortunately the 3rd Amendment will stop that from ever happening.

The Constitution reflects the times in which it was written and Quartering Soldiers was a big deal from recent memory.

Consider for a moment that when the Bill of Rights was drafted they considered that so important it’s the 3rd Amendment. It just goes to show how out-of-step the Constitution is from the modern world so trying to parse the 2nd Amendment to mean something unimaginable to the drafters is absurd.

 

[Grendelpuppy]

WHO commits mass homicides with assault rifles?

Or WHO commits mass homicides with Shotguns, pistols, gasoline, automobiles or poison.

 

[Grendelpuppy]

Nope. I get it, "Shall not be infringed." As I said, I support your right to have one. However, those wealthy slave owners that wrote the Constitution never imagined a weapon capable of annihilating a schoolyard in an eyeblink, did they?

Cannon loaded with grape shot were very common as were variants of the Blunderbuss.

The deadliest school massacre in US history was NOT committed with a firearm any type.

 

[Bdm20]

I go to sleep every night in fear the King will quarter soldiers in my home against my will.

Fortunately the 3rd Amendment will stop that from ever happening.

The Constitution reflects the times in which it was written and Quartering Soldiers was a big deal from recent memory.

Consider for a moment that when the Bill of Rights was drafted they considered that so important it’s the 3rd Amendment. It just goes to show how out-of-step the Constitution is from the modern world so trying to parse the 2nd Amendment to mean something unimaginable to the drafters is absurd.

Couldn’t agree with you more. And as Warren Burger said:

https://imgur.com/a/bUNkfmB

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Are you really that fucking stupid? Selective fire means it can fire either full auto or semi-auto. Its hysterical that you try to call me out and you don't even fucking know what selective fire means. Beautiful Dumb Ass!! LOL

Hey now you're shooting the messenger.....lol I posted the definition right from the US Army. Your beef is obviously with them.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Selective fire doesn’t mean from safety to fire, it means select from single shot ( semi-auto ) to fully automatic fire, the definition of assault rifle. Assault weapons are machine guns.

As I posted earlier, that comes directly from the US Army, go take your "opinion" up with them.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Abandoning the entire thing would be the simplest answer. However your accusation of it being "parts I don't like" is childish. There are huge chunks of it that very few people actually agree with. Most Americans don't even like the 2A if we were to either as its written OR as modern conservatives choose to interpret it which are very different things.

Either way most people don't agree with either interpretation when pressed.

Your opinion is your opinion. I happen to believe the Founding Fathers were genius in their forming of this new nation. There is a process to change the Constitution and Amendments have been written. I do not believe that abandoning the entire Constitution is a prudent move.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Calm down, Francis.

Yer face is getting redder than the surface of Mars up in here. Maybe get a drink of water and go play some racquetball or something to vent all that steam, ey!

Nope, its funny when I give back what you give me I am red faced, triggered, or whatever nonsense you want to spread, but you never point back at your self the amount of effort you put into trying to agitate me.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Hey now your shooting the messenger.....lol I posted the definition right from the US Army. Your beef is obviously with them.

You posted the definition right from the US ARMY and then in your next sentence discounted it.

Which means yes, you are that fucking stupid.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Your opinion is your opinion. I happen to believe the Founding Fathers were genius in their forming of this new nation. There is a process to change the Constitution and Amendments have been written. I do not believe that abandoning the entire Constitution is a prudent move.

The fact that you speak of the Founding Fathers who didn't want anybody who wasn't a white male land owner were genuises when they couldn't even agree on all of that! The constitution is entirely too difficult to change, which is why we don't. We work our way around it. When your system is so difficult to change that we just run end runs around it you've failed.

Nothing works forever anyway.

 

[DeviatedOne]

Let me answer that question WITH a question... or three... or four.....

Why does anyone NEED a Lamborghini or a Hummer?

Why does anyone NEED a 68 Camaro Z28 with a 427 and a 4 speed?

Why does anyone NEED a 96" TV to watch "reality" shows?

Why does anyone NEED a $4000 Armani suit? Or $800 shoes?

Why does anyone NEED a Jet-Ski? or a 4-wheeler?

Why does anyone NEED a $10,000 diamond bracelet?

The truth is we don't NEED any of those things. As human beings we need basic food, shelter and enough clothing to keep from freezing to death. Anything beyond that is a personal choice.

Aaaahhhh.... Personal choice. THE very, most BASIC of our rights in The United States of America. We have the freedom to choose the things we like. No one dictates to us what we wear, what we eat, what we drive, what we can say....

Oh... wait... There are people who like to misinform us and say things like "the vegan diet is the healthiest diet on the planet" and that everyone must stop eating animal based foods. We have people telling us that we can't wear fur or leather. We have people telling us we must drive economical cars. And we have people who tell us that we can't oppose what they say because THEY have freedom of speech. (as if anyone opposed does not)

Those people want to strip your rights from you to force you live THEIR lifestyle whether you want to or not. Forget your basic freedom of choice. They are doing what is "Best" for you. THAT is true fascism, my friends. And it is unconstitutional.

Want to know what else is unconstitutional? Punishing innocent people for the actions of others. What if I took your "smart" phone away from you and told you you could never have another because someone down the street was texting and driving and hit another car and killed 5 people? Would that be fair? What if I took your car and told you you could never drive again because hundreds of thousands of people die in car crashes every year? would that be fair? What about shutting down the internet because some people cyberbully others? Or watch porn? Would that be fair? Or banning fast food restaurants because they cause obesity? Would that be fair?

And now because an insane boy was able to purchase a rifle and shot up a school, you want to take those rifles away from law abiding, perfectly sane people. And further, you want to force people to have psychological exams to even purchase a gun. What other right in our constitution requires that? Do you have to prove you are sane or even know what you are talking about before you can stage a public protest/march/rally?

Perhaps you should have to. Given the amount of misinformation (and flat out lies) that are spread, maybe that would be best. Or maybe we just make it a Federal Felony Offense to knowingly spread misinformation in public forums/media/gatherings.

Tell you what I'll do. I'll give if you do. I'll accept a ban on the so called assault weapons if YOU accept a ban on cellular devices that can be operated while traveling at more than 3mph.

But I know you won't. Because YOU have rights. YOU have freedom of choice. And you don't mind trampling everyone else's rights and freedoms as long as you get to keep yours.

So here's a simpler solution. Why don'r we ALL stop destroying things just because we don't personally like them? That sounds fair to me. How 'bout you?

Well said.

 

[DeviatedOne]

Couldn’t agree with you more. And as Warren Burger said:

https://imgur.com/a/bUNkfmB

Nonetheless, the USSC already defined the "militia" as it is used in the 2A is every single US citizen, whether they like it or not, and whether they are in the military or not.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It's an eye-roller to watch each side cherry pick sections of the Constitution, and jurisprudence to support their position. The fact is; we have a conservative court that has made it clear what the Second Amendment means. All this panty wetting about "gun control" (which is really just "prole control") is political posturing because the Court, if any thing, is going to further expand the rights of legal gun owners. As are most states. That's the way it's going to be for at least the next 20 years.

 

[coati]

Nonetheless, the USSC already defined the "militia" as it is used in the 2A is every single US citizen, whether they like it or not, and whether they are in the military or not.

Oh, you are referring to the decision by the current Federalist-Society-dominated court, the one that tries to divine the "originalist" meaning of the messengers from God (the "Founding Fathers").

Well, let's take that orginalism a little further, because the Founding Fathers did not include the majority of people in America as US citizens, so their intention was not to arm "every single US citizen". It was to arm a "well-regulated" militia.

Assholes spraying bullets every time they get cut off in traffic is obviously not the definition of a well-regulated militia. So much for the validity of originalism. The people are revolting in mass against the insanity of the Deplorables and their perversion of the U.S. Judicial system.

 

[Rightguide]

I have, long time ago mind you, but I have. If it was meant to be an individual right there is no need at all to mention the militia, well regulated or othewise.

Besides I'm still not seeing how you justify that I can't buy grenades or claymore mines. Given how stand your ground/Castle laws work once those brats step foot on my lawn because their ball got away they became fair game.

I don't have to, you can't buy or possess them without a federal license.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Nope, its funny when I give back what you give me I am red faced, triggered, or whatever nonsense you want to spread, but you never point back at your self the amount of effort you put into trying to agitate me.

Hitchens, I'm barely putting in any effort...and you are getting agitated!

 

[Rightguide]

In fairness as its written the Constitution makes zero sense in a modern world so there is that.

That's because you can graduate from high school and be functionally illiterate.

It laid the foundation for the greatest country in history.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Hitchens, I'm barely putting in any effort...and you are getting agitated!

Not at you. I realized a long time ago that you are a waste of breathable air.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Not at you. I realized a long time ago that you are a waste of breathable air.

I don't give a shit about being a source of your stomach knots or not. I'm laughing at you. Dassit.

See, it's never personal, Hitchcraft. I laugh at all the schmucks that drive thru here.

Eventually you'll move on, another one will take your place because nature abhors a vacuum and I'll be laughing at them, too.

 

[Gamine67]

Your opinion is your opinion. I happen to believe the Founding Fathers were genius in their forming of this new nation. There is a process to change the Constitution and Amendments have been written. I do not believe that abandoning the entire Constitution is a prudent move.

Are you completely unaware of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the major rewrites that were implemented?

It’s way past time for another Constitutional Convention to align the document with the country as it currently exists.

Many of the participants were people call “Founding Fathers” and they were bright enough to say “oops” and hit the ”RESET” key.

It you told one of them that 235 years later we still haven’t had another Constitutional Convention I doubt they’d be impressed, even they knew they weren’t perfect.

 

[Grendelpuppy]

I don't have to, you can't buy or possess them without a federal license.

How about thermonuclear hand grenades?

 

[Grendelpuppy]

I don't give a shit about being a source of your stomach knots or not. I'm laughing at you. Dassit.

See, it's never personal, Hitchcraft. I laugh at all the schmucks that drive thru here.

Eventually you'll move on, another one will take your place because nature abhors a vacuum and I'll be laughing at them, too.

So you admit that your avocation is to be an ass hole troll.

 

[KeithD]

Nonetheless, the USSC already defined the "militia" as it is used in the 2A is every single US citizen, whether they like it or not, and whether they are in the military or not.

A ridiculous interpretation. Hope to see it corrected. It can be changed.

 

[KeithD]

Are you completely unaware of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the major rewrites that were implemented?

It’s way past time for another Constitutional Convention to align the document with the country as it currently exists.

Many of the participants were people call “Founding Fathers” and they were bright enough to say “oops” and hit the ”RESET” key.

It you told one of them that 235 years later we still haven’t had another Constitutional Convention I doubt they’d be impressed, even they knew they weren’t perfect.

The Second Amendment doesn't need a constitutional change. The current ruling is an obvious misinterpretation. It only needs to be interpreted correctly in a new ruling.