Andy Parker has been known as the grieving father. Andy Parker now appears to be running for public office again. Being anti-2nd and anti-firearm should draw financial support from 16oz Bloomberg. I don’t know if that will finally convince a majority of voters to elect Andy Parker to any office.
If Andy Parker wants to be a public speaker, he’s going to be treated like any other public speaker.
It’s interesting that Andy Parker wants to ban firearms for self-defense but intends to buy a firearm for his own defense. :rolleyes:
And your side doesn’t have the votes either, or you’d get rid of that pesky “well-regulated militia” part.
We don’t need a constitutional amendment. All we need is to get control back of the Congress and presidency like we had six years ago, but with a couple more Supreme Court seats on our side. Then the Constitution is what we say it is.
Why get rid of the “well regulated militia” part. It’s only confusing to the gun-grabbers. When the Supremes finally got around to addressing the 2nd in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, they decided firearm ownership was an individual right.
*Held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a)
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b)
The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c)
The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d)
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e)
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f)
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.*
Those would be the dull, rounded objects usually found lying to the right of your knife. Normally used for eating soup, dessert, stirring coffee/tea, flicking peas, or hanging on your nose to the delight of children everywhere.
MacGiver, you’re confusing pens with spoons. “The pen is mightier than the sword,” not “The spoon is mightier than the sword.”
That you would use guns to quell (not quill) what would be a democratically effected and constitutionally legal change in the laws regarding guns is unfortunate.
Sad but true, however according to this compilationeach grenade must be registered. No doubt this egregious infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights is being discussed at the next NRA board meeting.
I’m not sure jealous is the word. That would imply that we wish we could be like NRA members. I live with them and their idiotic bumper stickers all around me, and I will definitely pass.
I had a related thought during some discussion about banning “Assault Rifles” or not over the argument that a regular rifle is equally (or more) deadly, then what the heck militaries around the World had been doing the past six or seven decades spending bajillions perfecting and fielding assault rifles for?
Guns are meant to facilitate maiming and killing, that they can be used for other purposes doesn’t detract from the fact that they are (in the vast majority of the cases) designed specifically for that.
If guns don’t kill people… then they are not doing what they were made to do, specially in the case of handguns.
I’m not a gun control zealot, I just think the"Guns don’t kill people…" argument is disingenuous.
Since the sole purpose (aside from target shooting) of guns is to kill, and since Doorhinge has conclusively proven that guns used by the general public do not kill, then guns held by the general public are purposeless, so there is no reason to have them.
I’ll accept that there is no reason for you to have them. The 2nd is, and always has been, about self-defense.
If your intention is to do something about mass murderers committing murder, it would be more beneficial if you addressed the mindset and actions of the murderers. Unless your only goal is to ban millions of firearms.
You certainly sound like a gun control zealot. Knives, bombs, motor vehicles, and firearms don’t kill people. People who chose to murder people do kill people. You can address the actual problem, or you can continue to promote registration/confiscation and gun bans.
p.s. Your side doesn’t have the votes to make your dreams come true.
