A veterans thoughts on gun control

[John Smith]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Doesn't your Constitution say something about a 'well regulated militia'? How is America's gun addiction/epidemic related to that in any way? Seems like the opposite to me.

It also says the government was to arm and train that militia, and call upon it to enforce laws, repel invasions, and quash uprising.

It also say's "keep" and bear 'arms'.

What all this means is whatever the NRA tells politicians and judges what it means.

[TerryLL]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

It really amazes me so many here continually quote the original text of the 2nd amendment, and then impart their own interpretation of what it meant then, and therefore what it means today.

Pound on your keyboards until the cows come home folks, but your comments are without merit.

It is the role of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, not yours. If you don't like their interpretation, then seat a new court.

[BrianW]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Very few people thought the Wright Brothers were on to something. The majority of people believing somethings doesn't make it true, but in the case of the 2nd, the majority, wrong as they are, get to determine what it means in spite of what it says.

Tell me, please, where the 2nd amendment says anything about 'owning' arms. And 'arms' today includes many weapons never dreamed of then. Does the 2nd give individuals the right to won any kind of 'arms'?

You're clearly the Constitutional expert and lawyer that the anti-2nd Amendment people need and deserve. How nobody else has every thought of this line of reasoning is inconceivable.

Run with it, but don't expect us all to agree. Maybe if you just say it again... that might work.

[McMike]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

You're clearly the Constitutional expert and lawyer that the anti-2nd Amendment people need and deserve. How nobody else has every thought of this line of reasoning is inconceivable.

Run with it, but don't expect us all to agree. Maybe if you just say it again... that might work.

Lol, wow . . . and you are?

[TerryLL]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

.. Maybe if you just say it again... that might work.

There's quite a bit of that here. Repeat the same old meaningless phrases, but louder, and slower, and perhaps that will be convincing.

If some of the diehard advocates here took the time to educate themselves, we might move beyond the grandstanding.

But that takes a bit of work, so it's not likely to happen.

[WX]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Whatever you want to call it, and however you want to interpret it, it is clearly not working. Open slather gun ownership has not protected your democracy, and has not made the USA safer for it's people.

[RFNK]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

It really amazes me so many here continually quote the original text of the 2nd amendment, and then impart their own interpretation of what it meant then, and therefore what it means today.

Pound on your keyboards until the cows come home folks, but your comments are without merit.

It is the role of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, not yours. If you don't like their interpretation, then seat a new court.

Well, I'm not quoting or interpreting, just wondering. The gun people quote the 2nd amendment all the time but when I look at it I see this regulated militia reference. Doesn't it mean anything? The gun thing over there doesn't seem to be regulated at all, to me.

[TerryLL]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Well, I'm not quoting or interpreting, just wondering. The gun people quote the 2nd amendment all the time but when I look at it I see this regulated militia reference. Doesn't it mean anything? The gun thing over there doesn't seem to be regulated at all, to me.

Quoting the original text of the 2nd makes no sense, regardless of where one stands on private gun ownership.

SCOTUS has clearly defined in the Heller and Bruen decisions the current meaning of the 2nd.

Working yourself into a lather over the plain text of the 2nd is a waste of time, aside from providing a sense of feel-good righteousness to the advocates on both sides.

[John Smith]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

You're clearly the Constitutional expert and lawyer that the anti-2nd Amendment people need and deserve. How nobody else has every thought of this line of reasoning is inconceivable.

Run with it, but don't expect us all to agree. Maybe if you just say it again... that might work.

The court can be wrong, but their opinion is the one that matters.

I'm just reading what the founders wrote. Am I wrong in that it says 'keep', not 'own', or that it says 'arms', not 'guns'?

[John Smith]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Well, I'm not quoting or interpreting, just wondering. The gun people quote the 2nd amendment all the time but when I look at it I see this regulated militia reference. Doesn't it mean anything? The gun thing over there doesn't seem to be regulated at all, to me.

Art 1, Sec 8, which everyone ignores states rather clearing, I think, that the government was to arm and train and regulate that well regulated militia. The government was to call on that militia to enforce laws, repel invasions, and quash uprisings.

Be all this as it may, we are where we are, and the right doesn't seem to care.

[John Smith]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Quoting the original text of the 2nd makes no sense, regardless of where one stands on private gun ownership.

SCOTUS has clearly defined in the Heller and Bruen decisions the current meaning of the 2nd.

Working yourself into a lather over the plain text of the 2nd is a waste of time, aside from providing a sense of feel-good righteousness to the advocates on both sides.

That is true. The high court has the authority, but that's no guarantee they get it right. Look at the mess their recent decision on abortion has led to.

[TerryLL]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

That is true. The high court has the authority, but that's no guarantee they get it right. Look at the mess their recent decision on abortion has led to.

Once again, if you disagree with the rulings of SCOTUS, then either overturn their decisions or seat a different court. Until then, right or wrong, the decisions of the court are the law.

[sandtown]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Once again, if you disagree with the rulings of SCOTUS, then either overturn their decisions or seat a different court. Until then, right or wrong, the decisions of the court are the law.

I have zero respect for an institution that has for the most part supported the cause of white supremacy and oligarchy throughout its sorry-assed corrupt history.

All Congress has to do is to strip the jurisdiction.

Look it up.

[George Jung]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Locally, our legislature just approved a plan allowing folks to donate to their favorite parochial school, and receive 100% deductions from their taxes. It's a way to undermine public schools, and funding, and our RWW state govt/legislature rammed it through. Already a petition drive to bring it to a 2024 vote. Our former gov., lex luther, will likely pour millions into this fight, to defeat any attempt to stop this.

Really need to reverse CU; clean out the Supremes; perhaps folks will even pay attention, voting, going forward.

[RWRope-Capt G]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

for a complete education on the history of rifles, 2nd A. legal development, historical rulings, and how the courts have ruled on these issues up to the present day, please read AMERICA'S RIFLE, BY Stephen P. Halbrook.