Wayne LaPierre: Background checks won't catch bad guys because they'll simply not buy a gun to avoid being caught. Sen. Durbin: That's the farking point, idiot.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.

     



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     

     



    It means "the people".  At least that is what the founding fathers, the one's who penned those words meant.  If you are truly curious, look up George Mason.

     



    Go ahead, just ignore the "well regulated" part.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.

     



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     

     



    It means "the people".  At least that is what the founding fathers, the one's who penned those words meant.  If you are truly curious, look up George Mason.

     

     



    Go ahead, just ignore the "well regulated" part.

     




    I'm not ignoring it.  I just don't see the sense in trying to explain everything to you.  You seem to be on one of your typical "gotcha" missions, not really interested in a meaningful dialog. So, here it goes.  I'll tell you what it means, and you will explode with how offended you are, or something.

    Well regulated at the time of the creation of the amendment means to be well-trained, organize in groups.  It does not then, or now, mean to regulate, i.e. document either the people or the arms.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.

     



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     

     



    It means "the people".  At least that is what the founding fathers, the one's who penned those words meant.  If you are truly curious, look up George Mason.

     

     



    Go ahead, just ignore the "well regulated" part.

     




    I'm not ignoring it.  I just don't see the sense in trying to explain everything to you.  You seem to be on one of your typical "gotcha" missions, not really interested in a meaningful dialog. So, here it goes.  I'll tell you what it means, and you will explode with how offended you are, or something.

    Well regulated at the time of the creation of the amendment means to be well-trained, organize in groups.  It does not then, or now, mean to regulate, i.e. document either the people or the arms.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.

     



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     

     



    It means "the people".  At least that is what the founding fathers, the one's who penned those words meant.  If you are truly curious, look up George Mason.

     

     



    Go ahead, just ignore the "well regulated" part.

     

     




    I'm not ignoring it.  I just don't see the sense in trying to explain everything to you.  You seem to be on one of your typical "gotcha" missions, not really interested in a meaningful dialog. So, here it goes.  I'll tell you what it means, and you will explode with how offended you are, or something.

     

    Well regulated at the time of the creation of the amendment means to be well-trained, organize in groups.  It does not then, or now, mean to regulate, i.e. document either the people or the arms.

     



    Really? Regulated used to mean well trained and organised in groups? Fascinating! So a "regulated militia" actually means an organised group of citizens organized in a group for military service? I mean aside from the fact that regulated has never, ever, ever meant anything but being controlled and supervised.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.

     



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     

     



    It means "the people".  At least that is what the founding fathers, the one's who penned those words meant.  If you are truly curious, look up George Mason.

     

     



    Go ahead, just ignore the "well regulated" part.

     

     




    I'm not ignoring it.  I just don't see the sense in trying to explain everything to you.  You seem to be on one of your typical "gotcha" missions, not really interested in a meaningful dialog. So, here it goes.  I'll tell you what it means, and you will explode with how offended you are, or something.

     

    Well regulated at the time of the creation of the amendment means to be well-trained, organize in groups.  It does not then, or now, mean to regulate, i.e. document either the people or the arms.

     

     



    Really? Regulated used to mean well trained and organised in groups? Fascinating! So a "regulated militia" actually means an organised group of citizens organized in a group for military service? I mean aside from the fact that regulated has never, ever, ever meant anything but being controlled and supervised.

     



    Sorry to dissapoint you, but that is what the founding fathers meant.  Now, you could argue it is no longer relevant, real the 2nd amendment, but you cannot change what it meant at the time it was written.

    Read the federalist papers.  read some of Mason's writings on this subject.  It will help you understand more about why the 2nd amendment came into being, and whatthe words meant at the time they were written.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    The 2nd Amendment talks about the right to own guns.

     

    It doesn't say anything about how they are accessed, bought and sold.  That is the penultimate question.

     

     




     

    infringed.  That's the key.

    in·fringe Pronunciation (n-frnj)

    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

     

    v. tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. ObsoleteTo defeat; invalidate.

     

    Somewhere there is a line government crosses that equals infringement.  Restricting sales, forcing registration, other gun-control ideas need to be viewed through this lens.

     



    It is admittedly broad language.  Not too different from language pertaining to other rights too.  And yet all rights have their limitations.  Congress is prohibitting the free exercise of religion yet laws that govern harmful religious practices have been upheld.  It cannt abridge the freedom of speech or press and yet you cannot engage in certain harmful practices there either.  Thus regulation of harmful aspects of the right to bear arms are fair game.  But where the legal line is is anybody's guess... 

     

     




    Absolutely.  That's the point.  When someone says "x,y, and z" shouldn't bother anyone as an infringement, it is generally not well thought through. 

     

    Same with solutions.  As I listen to the solutions tossed around, there is little attention paid to properly defining the problem.

     



    So how does "a well REGULATED MILITIA" factor into your equation? Just curious.

     

     



    It means "the people".  At least that is what the founding fathers, the one's who penned those words meant.  If you are truly curious, look up George Mason.

     

     



    Go ahead, just ignore the "well regulated" part.

     

     




    I'm not ignoring it.  I just don't see the sense in trying to explain everything to you.  You seem to be on one of your typical "gotcha" missions, not really interested in a meaningful dialog. So, here it goes.  I'll tell you what it means, and you will explode with how offended you are, or something.

     

    Well regulated at the time of the creation of the amendment means to be well-trained, organize in groups.  It does not then, or now, mean to regulate, i.e. document either the people or the arms.

     

     



    Really? Regulated used to mean well trained and organised in groups? Fascinating! So a "regulated militia" actually means an organised group of citizens organized in a group for military service? I mean aside from the fact that regulated has never, ever, ever meant anything but being controlled and supervised.

     



    Sorry to dissapoint you, but that is what the founding fathers meant.  Now, you could argue it is no longer relevant, real the 2nd amendment, but you cannot change what it meant at the time it was written.

    Read the federalist papers.  read some of Mason's writings on this subject.  It will help you understand more about why the 2nd amendment came into being, and whatthe words meant at the time they were written.

     

Share