Who says “you can’t make any laws about guns”? More specifically, who in this thread or on this message board says that?
Really want that strawman to work, don’t you? To be clear, I’m saying YOUR POSITION IS A JOKE. Since you don’t seem to be getting it.
Either you are, again, being willfully ignorant or you simply can’t be bothered recalling from thread to thread. To, again, be clear (for everyone else, who will perhaps actually read this instead of having those fingers in their ears), I’m not ignoring half of the amendment…the first half of the amendment defines one of the reasons why the second half is granted. The second half isn’t dependent on the first half, since the first half was what the founders though was one of the most urgent justifications for the second. You’d know this if you actually read what folks said in any of the myriad threads you’ve participated in on this board on this subject (of course, I think you have and choose to willfully ignore them and mis-state others positions).
It’s not a personal attack…you DO say ‘you are wrong’ generally in these discussions. Do you want a cite? I can point you to you doing it, again, in this very thread. 
No. But I won’t go over it again with you. If you haven’t gotten the gist of the other sides argument by this point you never will.
Try to ban anything, the NRA screams “Second Amendment!”, collects a few million more in contributions from the gun industry and makes statements to their base that border on incitement.
The NRA position is pretty much “there will be no new laws about guns and in fact, we’re going to roll back the existing ones.” So I don’t know how anyone could claim that they are not saying that first sentence above.
If this is intended as a legal analysis, I believe it’s a rather poor one.
Shotguns?
And people laugh and say “slippery slope” when the gun people say that new gun laws will just lead to more, that banning “assault weapons” will just lead to more gun bannings.
You do realize that banning and laws regulating are two different things, right? Certainly at this point the NRA would balk at new bans, since they seem them as attempts by the anti-gun side at slippery slopes to ban whole categories, since in the past we had such brilliant legislature as the AWB which was pretty clearly a ban on scary looking guns.
But the NRA is only one organization, and since they are a pro-gun group they are going to be very critical and in opposition to just about anything that impacts their narrow plank of issues. That said, there is nothing inherently un-Constitutional about new regulations for the public good, whether some vertical group opposes them or not. Try and ban all handguns, say, would be currently un-Constitutional. Waiting lists or background checks wouldn’t be.
I think you misspelled “Teddy Roosevelt”. The militias became the Guard and became federalizable with the Militia Act of 1903.
No, I just want you to recognize that the 2nd is an entire sentence, all of which is intended to have meaning.
But they did put it there. Just for shits and giggles, you think? Or for a purpose?
And then I show you why. Then you get all upset about it and simply repeat your quasi-religious assertions, and go on to tell anyone who doesn’t share them automatically about their “willful ignorance” etc. That and similar personal attacks (yes) constitutes the bulk of your verbiage in this thread. :rolleyes:
Oh, I’ve certainly gotten it, well enough to point out *how *it’s wrong. You, on the other hand, won’t even try.
Opposite?
What part of wanting to see the “well regulate militia” part of the amendment imposed is the opposite of what was written?
Because as it stands owning a gun today has fuck-all to do with a militia…well regulated or otherwise.
And it does have meaning. Which you’d know if you had bothered to listen to any of the counter arguments used in the myriad threads you’ve been in. But you didn’t bother, and I’m not going to educate you again here, especially since it would be a wasted breath since, again, YOU WON’T LISTEN.
You’d not be so puzzled if you had paid attention when this was explained to you over and over again in the past. But you didn’t, so puzzled you shall be.
Naw…you never have, because clearly you don’t even know what you are arguing against. Hard to debate someone when you can’t be bothered to even understand what is under discussion. And that is a good example of ‘willful ignorance’. It’s not a personal attack…you display this characteristic literally in every thread on this subject you participate in. For years.
It would be one thing if you acknowledged what the other position is an then argued against it. Or, more honestly as other posters have in those thread, said they don’t really care what the FF’s really thought about it and that it should be vacated. But you don’t.
You clearly haven’t as you need it spoon fed to you yet again. Or is that all an act? Which is it, Elvis? Do you get it, which makes your other lines in this and other posts in this thread curious, or do you not get it? I honestly can’t tell. Perhaps the Mods can sort it out and take appropriate measures.
A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the state, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Basically, the founding fathers are saying that we need(ed) a militia, and it needed to be a well run militia not some loose cannon organization doing whatever it wanted, and in order to have a militia the government would not infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms so that we had a ready pool of armed citizens who could come to the defense of the state if needed. But you didn’t need to be in the militia to have a right to keep and bear arms…you simply needed to be a white male citizen in good standing. If you had a religious conviction not to be in the militia, well and good…but you still got that right to keep and bear arms. If you couldn’t serve in the militia for health reasons you still got that right to keep and bear arms. The second half of the amendment wasn’t dependent on the first, but the first half was dependent on the second.
Or, if you like, show me instances where citizens were denied the right to keep and bear arms after the 2nd was instituted because they weren’t in the militia. Should be easy enough, since it’s so often claimed by the anti-gun side that the two are equal and that the first half has direct bearing on the second. There should be loads of instances where citizens that meet the criteria (i.e white, male, tax paying citizens in good standing) are denied the right to keep and bear arms because they weren’t in the militia. I’ll come over to the dark side if you can show me sufficient evidence that this was a thing in the early 19th century.
The part that says that federal laws are supreme. The feds aren’t supreme if the states can just withdraw from the Union whenever they feel like it.
Well, they can do it if force of arms prevents the Constitution from being enforced against them. If a revolution is successful, it become legal, and no one cares anymore what the arguments used to be.
I believe (though here I don’t really know) that at the time it was still debatable whether or not states could just withdraw from the Union. This was, of course, settled (for most) by 1865.
It was often asserted, but not actually debated.
Only up to the very-near point at which a standing army was established. The first half is still a clause that grammatically modifies the second.
You can’t claim to honor the Founders’ “original intent” if you have to put forth such strenuous efforts to dismiss the parts where they fucking *told *you what they intended.
Show us how to legally get a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun, even today. With your claim to superior knowledge of the history of gun rights, you surely know the answer.
The side that respects the value of human life is not “dark”. But welcome to it.
Oh, it was debated:
But nothing was ever settled. However, in general the debates around ratifying the Constitution made it pretty clear that most considered that the new Constitution did take away the right to secede.
The idea that the right to have a gun is an individual right is a new one. Something brought into existence with the Heller decision. A decision that overturned 70 years of precedent.
I’ll let this summary of the dissent justice Stevens wrote spell it out.
Nothing in Miller was overturned. What precedent do you think was overturned?
Not at all, the idea that the right to have a gun is an individual right wasnt *settled *until Heller. It had been debated but never actually decided by SCOTUS, who for decades avoided settling the issue until the District of Columbia pushed it.