BTW, just a general question since everyone seems to lean on the Second Amendment:

What does "well-regulated" mean in the context of "a well-regulated militia?"

Honest question. I haven't studied this, and haven't ever heard anyone address this.

Here's a pretty good writeup on the 2nd dating back to 1994 that I personally like.

You can read it all as it is a good historical review that is beleived to have driven the thinking of the founders.

Or, you skip to the last page and read the last 2 paragraphs.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

Gun show loop hole has nothing to do with guns shows or dealers. It is a private sale of a tool from 1 party to another. I don't need to go to a car dealer to sell you my car why should i need to go to an ffl to sell you my gun. Also cars kill more people on accident, misuse and recklessness and firearms each year.

your statement on regulatory language assumes that CCP holders are not good people. If you look at the state data taken in the last 7 years only a handful of crimes have been committed by CCP holders. Further more it states none were with a firearm.

But lets apply this logic to other social and state issues. if an EBT user shoplifts should we take away the EBT card?

If a person gets a drunk in public charge should they loose the right to purchase alcohol?

If a person gets a speeding ticket should they loose the ability to drive and own a car?

I have been around a lot of private security, state, county and federal law enforcement in my life and i can tell you that they training most get at the county and private level is far less than most of the range time people on this board get. In most cases it is a few hours a year and a qualifier at sub 20 feet.

As for training being a key element to your debate. I go back to traffic and auto accidents. that kill more people each year than firearms during peace times.

As for training even the most well trained and experience chefs in the world still cut them selves and burn things. yes there is a difference between a knife cut and a reckless discharge. however practice and training in any amount is not 100% effective. if you dont believe me watch some cooking competitions. Or better yet go to a metro bus depot and see how many of them dont signal in traffic pulling out from the depot.

once again the issue is not the tools used by evil people or morons. but the fact that we have evil people and morons in our society. I for one do not wish to cater to the lowest common denominator. and if an idiot wants to look down the barrel of a fire arm on a misfire or climb inside a corn crib to remove a clog. I see no major loose in issuing a few darwin awards each year.

As for the evil people in this world. We are failures at punishing criminals. Jeffrey Domer was not put down like the animal he is, ole boy in Aurora Co was not disposed off nor was the DC sniper duo. We need to dispose of the animals that threaten our society vs carter to them and just keep them locked away from polite society.

I think we should reduce the stupid malevolent people not take away the rights from our polite citizenry.

str870s quote "BTW, just a general question since everyone seems to lean on the Second Amendment:
What does "well-regulated" mean in the context of "a well-regulated militia?"
Honest question. I haven't studied this, and haven't ever heard anyone address this."

str870s if you look at the constitution you will find a comma between the militia statement and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

please note the use of the comma and the definition below
"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."definition of a grammatical comma. note used to separate items in a list.

com·ma
ˈkämə/Submit
noun
1.
a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place of thousands in a large numeral.

if you want to take this even further look up the grammatical use of a comma in the 1700's and 1800's it is used to separate lists and thoughts only not for a pause in a sentence. Thus the reason why we as individual citizens have the un-infringed right to bear arms.
further more the supreme court case work i noted in my previous post Warren VS DC proves that the government is not bound to protect and individual but society as a whole. Thus the only way for me to exercise my right to life and liberty is to protect my self and have the protection for my self from tyranny, malevolent people and factions.

so the militia context doesn't apply to the individual as stated by the ultimate law of the land.

masterlunatic, Mark S, I'll take a look at the write-up on the Second Amendment, but...

Reading any portion of the Constitution, you quickly realize that a comma is quite often used as just a pause, or continuation of an idea. Even reading just the Second Amendment, the first comma is not a separator in a list. I call "bull" on the comma. The first, second, and last commas of the following, familiar language are not separators.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

str870s- "...I will vote for Sanders in the primaries, and hopefully in the general election as well. Are you familiar with his stance on guns? He's one of only two sane, intelligent, and compassionate..."

There is no way to change your mind. You will use exceptions to argue for the rule. You mention a few instances where good guys made bad shots while trying to help. How many bad shots would be acceptable to stop a san bernadino, columbine or Connecticut? One little old lady spraying five shots from a pink S&W would have possibly broken up all of that carnage regardless of who the bad guys were and where those 5 bullets landed. The left will continue to mask their attempt to take away firearms with the "if it saves one life" argument. But they disregard the very real possibility that those laws and EO's may in fact cost lives by not allowing good guys to go armed and maybe break up an attack on otherwise defenseless folks.
You will argue for the very same policies that tried to destroy your ancestors (you brought it up). There is no way these EO's will prevent the bad guys from doing what they do. The EO's may however make good folks go thru extra time and procedure to buy a gun from a reputable source. But even that is not the big plan. Your pres joked about a conspiracy last night. Here is the big plan you and other socialist/communist folks publically deny: confiscation will begin with registration. Registration will begin with data collection. That is a fact proven by your history.
T

str870s Do not bypass the cuss filter. This is your warning.

Yawn...

str870s:
BTW, just a general question since everyone seems to lean on the Second Amendment:

What does "well-regulated" mean in the context of "a well-regulated militia?"

Honest question. I haven't studied this, and haven't ever heard anyone address this.

So, you haven't studied the subject and you're going to call "bull" on the comma? Is there any argument you aren't going to call "bull" on? Are you an English major, History major, or just another troll?

So you don't know anything about the 2nd Amendment but claim it is wrong?



It certainly looks like you don't know jack to me.



You're right, he is definitely a troll. That was my immediate impression from the start but decided to oblige him anyway. I know for a fact members at this forum have more than one account and like to troll with both accounts, so keep in mind there are members at this forum with little else to do but amuse themselves at everyone else's expense.

LaserJock, sorry for that. Won't happen again. (Actually ducking out now. Don't know what I was thinking.)

twidpa, you're about the only one here who keeps the arguments in the debate realm, and not the empty attack realm. Thank you again. By the way, the data collection > registration > confiscation process is a CAN happen, not a WILL happen. Without knowing exactly what guns I currently own, the government obviously knows I am a gun owner, what with the background checks, hunting license, FFL purchases, and CCP I carry.

Mark S, I'm an engineer. If I read a hypothesis, and can immediately disprove it with one staunch point (the exception to what is obviously NOT a rule given the exception(s)), I do so. Scientific method - part of debate.

Obviously I should stay out of the comment threads, because the conversation is amazingly one-sided, and defensively so. I'll leave you all with a quote (at the end), since both "sides" will tend to view their own favorably when reading it.

I have made, and do make, arguments for both sides of this debate. None of my arguments, in any forum, are based in anger or fear. That's what keeps it debate. Not that you all care, but I often argue against limitations and bans, again using exceptions to debunk rules. No one seemed interested when I did make points on "your" side (e.g. gun-free zones).

If anyone is interested in an intellectual exercise (this is clearly not the venue), PM me and perhaps we'll try this: argue for the "other side". We can meet at a coffee shop or restaurant, and each role play debating for what we currently view as the opposing side. This is an exercise I imagine will help all involved realize there is, in fact, middle ground.

BTW, not that I care, but if you look at the definition of troll, it is not exclusively "guy who doesn't agree with us on the discussion board."

Quote for the day:
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to knock the pieces over, poop all over the board, and strut around like it won anyway." For you folks, I am the pigeon. For me, the chess pieces are people who don't need to be killed.

CNN: Obama Should Declare National State of Emergency

The above article is a op-ed piece published by CNN which is not only supporting Universal Background Checks and the mental health related aspects of the proposed bill but is essentially calling for Martial Law in the United States in order to address the "epidemic" of gun violence. While I would like to write this article off as just one man's opinion the fact of the matter is this is a disturbing trend I think we should absolutely be concerned about.

Declaration of National Emergency





National Emergencies Act

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-pg1119.pdf

For those interested in learning more:

Dan Page

CNN: Gun Control Is One Thing But What About Bullets?

Operation Garden Plot

The United States Civil Disturbance Plan

New World Order: Garden Plot

Rex 84

Bush Replaced Rex 84

CNN: Historic Week as Dow Plunges

Special Message from Dan Page

Here's proof 870 is a troll; a quote from his post:The regulatory language suggests that if a person doesn't have reason to believe that a purchaser can't own a gun, then it's okay. That's an EXTREMELY low standard. As I said before, in the 5 years between renewing a CCP, a lot can happen, and a lot of violent crimes can be committed. Let me sincerely commend everyone on here who requires "good guy papers" including a CCP or a voter registration card, because you are (sort of) running a rudimentary background check.

Really, a lot of violent crimes? So
1) Violent crime>arrest>conviction>loss of ccp
2) Violent crime>no arrest>no loss of ccp

So the troll claims having a ccp doesn't show good guy status.
I will put his posts on my garden this spring for fertilizer.

Definitely Dem talking points. Makes as much sense as the new mayor of Philly saying they have too many Guns on the street when a Muslim yelling Allah Akbar while shooting a cop with a stolen cop weapon isn't an Islamic terrorist action.

Washington Post: Obama's Gun Control Not Enough, Confiscation Needed

Calls for martial law, confiscation in major mainstream media sources are becoming more common place. All of this sounds exactly like United Nations rhetoric which is ultimately designed to implement the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development Plan. The UN Arms Treaty is ultimately part of such a plan which is becoming a reality before our very eyes.

What all the gun grabbers fail to admit is that Australian and American numbers since the mid 1990s are very close in the drop in gun homicides even after the Australian confiscation.

The real difference is in gun suicides. There is A LOT of disagreement as to whether it decreases the suicide rate overall. Again, that is a also a mental health issue. The 2 suicides I've had a personal (friend of mine or family member) were both non-gun.

No matter how you slice it, the anti-gunners have become emboldened unlike any time since they got skewered in the elections of the '90's. They feel like now is their moment to push the master agenda of not just "gun safety" or "commonsense" regulation, but a series of ever more severe laws, regs, executive actions, and the like, until they've cinched a noose around the 2nd Amendment and choked the life out of it, for lack of a better illustration.

Folks, I feel strongly that this may be the lead up to the epic battle for the 2nd Amendment that so many have been saying is coming for decades now. This Presidential election will in no small part be the precursor, as the next President may very well appoint replacements for one or more of the current conservative Supreme Court Justices. And if the wrong person is the one at the helm, then you can rest assured that Heller and other gun right victories will be reversed, along with far worse outcomes in the months and years to come.

While these recent Executive Actions on the part of the Obama Admin can only be taken so far by the Anti's, they could certainly have a chilling effect on gun owners' rights in the long term, particularly in combination with other actions such as additional laws, and interpretations of existing law by emboldened agencies and States' Governor's.

I guess I'm probably going to start rambling here if I don't quit and get off my soap box; I just wanted to spout off about what I see as a dangerous trend emerging. God bless us here in this currently free Commonwealth, but I fear for how long. I just returned from visiting family in MA and let me tell you, none of us want our state to move towards that level of constriction against our civil rights, particularly gun rights. That's all for now...

Freedom and liberty will always be battling the emboldened ignorance and stupidity.

In December, 2015 the LA Times reported Obama planned to use Executive Orders to close the "gun show loophole." Recently it was reported on thehill.com that the Social Security Administration was considering reporting mentally ill patients to the FBI background check process in a move to block firearm purchases.

I have a huge problem with petitioning the state for permission to exercise a civil right, and possession of a firearm IS a civil right. I think we have all seen the futility of these background checks in stamping out crimes committed with the aid of a firearm. Much like speed limit laws, if they worked, there would be not crimes using guns in the area with universal background checks in place. We keep surrendering our rights until there are none left and we wonder what happened. These laws need to be resisted by any means. If enacted they must be ignored. If one sits on a jury of a defendant charged with possessing, selling or buying a firearm around a background check that one must find the defendant not guilty.

1+

Indeed. Be the judicial spoiler. By preserving that Defendant's rights you are also preserving YOUR rights.

7 Things To Know After Orlando Violence


It has not taken long before calls of Universal Background Checks and more gun control have echoed throughout the mainstream media. The article above was specially designed for this purpose alone. Interesting to note one of the lefts protected classes has once again slaughtered Americans and the solution these social justice warriors propose is to disarm Americans and take away their means of self defense.

Thus making situations like the shooting Orlando more likely to occur, not less likely. But the idea has never been about safety, gun control is actually people control disguised and wrapped up in a safety blanket. A wolf in sheeps clothing.

The recent calls for Universal Background Checks, expanding the background check process reminds me of the article I recently read below. A brief synopsis has it that there are many American who have a diagnosable mental health illness and as we've already seen in cases around the country, that is enough to disqualify one from legal ownership of firearms. The mental health records being a key component of the Universal Background Check process that virtually slides under the table because its the mechanism that can be used to deny Americans their second Amendment rights.

Americans sickest Nation in Modern World

This guy was a licensed security guard that carried a weapon for work.

Once again the call for 'stricter' regulations would have done nothing to stop this attack.

What we haven't heard from the traitor in chief or his boot licking proxies was that this was a Islamic Radicalism, because they can't tel the truth.

Maybe the LBGT community will begin to understand what the threat really is.

Firing an AR15 is Horrorfying

Above we see an example of Communist propaganda designed to frighten the general public and increase support for Universal Background Checks and an Assault Weapons Ban which President Obama recently called for (again).

When I first looked at the article I saw the author's name, 'Gersh Kuntzman', and I thought, 'is the NY Post playing a trick on us'?

Just what is, "the smell of destruction"????? I wonder if this guy ever goes to a July 4th fireworks display. Oh no!!!! the evil gun is too loud and makes me scared. What a load of crap. Let's not even go into the "expanded background checks" foolishness. Someone needs to inform these fools that there are NO Constitutional restrictive gun laws in this country.