It's the Guns

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

The second amendment just says 'arms' not guns. perhaps it meant atomic bombs, nerve gas or other WMD's?

Of course, we both know it really doesn't mean that.

Nor does it mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry guns.

It was clearly about organized militias for the protection of the freedom of the people, which is different from everyone, even those not in militias, carrying a weapon.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house. They also aren't selling you drugs or shooting you.

Arms, in 18th Century parlance is short for FIREarms. That means guns. And YES, it does mean citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. And, that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which means putting laws and regulations in place to impede them from exercising that right.

Please, stop making up crap to support your anti-gun stance.

So, in the 18th century, they didn't have swords knives, spears, arrows, battle axes, maces, ballistas, bombs and canon? You know, arms, short for ARMamentS.

Also, I'm fairly sure that it isn't legally valid to chop up a single legal clause int little sub-sections and apply that meaning. Generally sentences go together and each paragraph or clause has a primary subject to which all the stipulations relate.

The right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Otherwise the 2nd amendment could be taken to mean arm the criminally insane and I'm sure they didn't intend that.

FIREarms is what was meant in that amendment. Your attempt to deflect to other items is beneath you to be honest.

And, seem the U.S> SCOTUS (the real deciders of the law here in the U.S.) have ruled in the Heller case that it does apply to INDIVIDUAL citizens, and is NOT dependent upon them being in a militia.

You are really contorting and twisting here to beat a dead horse because you don't like it's color.

Give it a rest. You simply do NOT understand our Constitutional amendment, so just admit it already. Accept the fact that we in this country have the RIGHT to own firearms, and are protected from our government taking them by our supreme law.

Sheesh.

Honestly, I'm too far away for US fired bullets to reach.

Nor do i suggest that the US should be disarmed.

The idea of a well regulated militia keeping the government honest sounds fair, even in an age where the government probably out-guns the population in any one trouble spot.

That is why a militia can be effective where armed individuals cannot do anything other than cause local anarchy and pointless death.

Without the organization of the citizens (militia), the defense of citizen freedom against a large, organized, armed and oppressive government cannot happen anyway.

For the 2nd amendment to work and do what it is supposed to do, it must involve well regulated militias, not individuals.

The point you are missing, is that the militias are made up of the citizenry....not regular army. For the citizens to be able to do that, they need to be able to keep and bear their OWN arms and not be dependent upon the government to hold them. Therefore, for the amendment to be effective, the citizens MUST be able to own firearms, and as the SCOTUS correctly ruled, that right is not dependent upon them being in a militia.

And, for clarity, "well regulated" in the 18th Century meant well trained, in good order. Personally, I would welcome the requirement for anyone wishing to exercise their 2nd amendment be well trained by certified training. However, for it to be fair to everyone, the cost should NOT be such that a poor person would be unable to afford it, and therefore, it would be an infringement upon their right.

Look, I actually agree and think we have assumed different things about each other's viewpoints.

Yes, individuals can own firearms, but I would say that they should only do so if the do it with responsibility, which means training and membership in a militia where discipline and citizen safety are mandatory.

I also think that there should be attempts to keep guns out of criminal hands. This would mean that all guns are registered and all owners are licensed. Should someone have a criminal record, it means that they cannot be trusted to own a gun responsibly and any gun they own, or any gun in their possession, discovered in a search, would automatically be confiscated and their gun owners license revoked. I know this only reduces the access to guns by criminals and doesn't prevent it, but it doesn't disarm the law abiding and it must have some effect.

Then the next thing is that suicide by firearm far outweighs any other means. There should be psychological assistance and support services for all citizens likely to have guns, to ensure that the suicide numbers (by any means) reduce. Since there is economic opportunity in gun sales it seems only fair that there should be a particular financial contribution by vendors to ensure that the guns they sell are used responsibly.

originally posted by: [post]chr0naut[/post]
...
I also think that there should be attempts to keep guns out of criminal hands. Should someone have a criminal record, it means that they cannot be trusted to own a gun responsibly and any gun they own, or any gun in their possession, discovered in a search, would automatically be confiscated and their gun owners license revoked. I know this only reduces the access to guns by criminals and doesn't prevent it, but it doesn't disarm the law abiding and it must have some effect.

That is already the case nationwide, regardless of what the press lies about. Anyone with a felony conviction is barred from legally owning a firearm. However, with the black market, they still can buy one with no restrictions whatsoever. IMO, that is the place the authorities and politicos should be focusing their efforts upon. Not innocent citizens.

originally posted by: [post]chr0naut[/post]
...
This would mean that all guns are registered and all owners are licensed.

That is problematic since the U.S. government has already proven to not be trusted with having the information of who has a registered firearm. They have released that information twice already to themedia which promptly publiushed it using a map graphic displaying all the homes having registered firearms. Not only is that a bad ide because it tells criminals what houses have them, and makes them a robbery target, but also makes us all wonder why would they need to know where they are? For confiscation purposes that would make it a very easy task, wouldn't it?

originally posted by: [post]chr0naut[/post]
...
Then the next thing is that suicide by firearm far outweighs any other means. There should be psychological assistance and support services for all citizens likely to have guns, to ensure that the suicide numbers (by any means) reduce. Since there is economic opportunity in gun sales it seems only fair that there should be a particular financial contribution by vendors to ensure that the guns they sell are used responsibly.

this I disagree with because the definition of "mental illness" has changed to much over time, that it becomes a risk to your rights. For example, if someone is on anti-depressants for a medical reason, does that indicate mental illness requiring their rights be violated? Ask yourself, do they require the same type of requirements for the 1st Amendment, or any other? Free speech can be very dangerous in the wrong hands...in fact it can be responsible for numerous mass deaths itself. Cults are one that come to mind, like Jamestown and Rev. Jim Jones, or the Heaven's Gate cult. Not a weapon around responsible for any of those deaths.

In the history of mankind, all governments abuse their power eventually. Which is why the founders added the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. To allow the people to resist a government abusing it's power. And given the massive military in the U.S., asymmetric warfare would make the possibility of the government completely taking power unlikely and too cost effective.

See: Vietnam, Afghanistan, The Bundy Ranch, etc...

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: [post]chr0naut[/post]
...
I also think that there should be attempts to keep guns out of criminal hands. Should someone have a criminal record, it means that they cannot be trusted to own a gun responsibly and any gun they own, or any gun in their possession, discovered in a search, would automatically be confiscated and their gun owners license revoked. I know this only reduces the access to guns by criminals and doesn't prevent it, but it doesn't disarm the law abiding and it must have some effect.

That is already the case nationwide, regardless of what the press lies about. Anyone with a felony conviction is barred from legally owning a firearm. However, with the black market, they still can buy one with no restrictions whatsoever. IMO, that is the place the authorities and politicos should be focusing their efforts upon. Not innocent citizens.

That is why a registry of individual arms, tied to licensing of owners is important.

An unregistered gun is illegal.

An unlicensed owner is illegal.

Transfer of a gun (say a sale) from one person to another without registration of the new owner would be an illegal sale.

Then authorities would have a way to know (after court approval) who should have what guns, and can instigate a search if a convicted criminal does not surrender the weapon upon request by a duly appointed officer.

Also, for registered responsible owners, it makes sense that they should be able to absolve themselves of any responsibility should a firearm registered to them be used in a homicide, and also for insurance claims purposes.

The documentation process has to be quick and robust (perhaps like the system we use now with credit card numbers and check codes?).

originally posted by: [post]chr0naut[/post]
...
This would mean that all guns are registered and all owners are licensed.

That is problematic since the U.S. government has already proven to not be trusted with having the information of who has a registered firearm. They have released that information twice already to themedia which promptly publiushed it using a map graphic displaying all the homes having registered firearms. Not only is that a bad ide because it tells criminals what houses have them, and makes them a robbery target, but also makes us all wonder why would they need to know where they are? For confiscation purposes that would make it a very easy task, wouldn't it?

In releasing that data, the reporters were committing a criminal act in itself.

Normal privacy laws and stipulations should cover all 'public' data.

If anything is released it should be heavily anonymized so as to only give a general and not personal or specific details and the authorities themselves should not have unlimited access to the data. Again, only by court approval can the data of private citizens be accessed and then only by particular officers.

originally posted by: [post]chr0naut[/post]
...
Then the next thing is that suicide by firearm far outweighs any other means. There should be psychological assistance and support services for all citizens likely to have guns, to ensure that the suicide numbers (by any means) reduce. Since there is economic opportunity in gun sales it seems only fair that there should be a particular financial contribution by vendors to ensure that the guns they sell are used responsibly.

this I disagree with because the definition of "mental illness" has changed to much over time, that it becomes a risk to your rights. For example, if someone is on anti-depressants for a medical reason, does that indicate mental illness requiring their rights be violated?

Instead of calling it mental illness, why not refer to it as having suicide enablers/motivators.

Definitely, there are higher suicide rates among the depressed and of those taking anti-depressants.

You aren't aiming to cure some potential 'mental illness' you are just encouraging them through a rough patch. It's not like locking them up in asylums is a solution. Things like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are vastly better in achieving relatively quick and sure results.

Hell, everyone has ups and downs in life, but that doesn't mean we just sit back and let people die of a bad week!

Ask yourself, do they require the same type of requirements for the 1st Amendment, or any other? Free speech can be very dangerous in the wrong hands...in fact it can be responsible for numerous mass deaths itself. Cults are one that come to mind, like Jamestown and Rev. Jim Jones, or the Heaven's Gate cult. Not a weapon around responsible for any of those deaths.

In the history of mankind, all governments abuse their power eventually. Which is why the founders added the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. To allow the people to resist a government abusing it's power. And given the massive military in the U.S., asymmetric warfare would make the possibility of the government completely taking power unlikely and too cost effective.

See: Vietnam, Afghanistan, The Bundy Ranch, etc...

Damn man, I'm going to drop out of this conversation right now.

One of my co-workers brother in law just committed suicide, a few minutes ago. He leaves a young wife and two children under the age of four.

Sometimes it seems like the the world just wants to break you. This is so wrong.

a reply to: chr0naut

An unregistered gun is illegal.

Depends upon the state in which you dwell.
ballotpedia.org...

Silly, isn't it?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house.

What do you mean by "breaking into my house?" You mean entering your house illegally? Because if you do mean that, that is exactly what illegal immigrants are doing - breaking into our country illegally. That is against the law. Do you deny that illegal immigration violates our law? Choose your answer carefully, because if you don't, that is part of the problem we have today.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Do you deny that illegal immigration violates our law?

It does. It's a misdemeanor. Have you ever committed one?

In some states you have the legal right to kill someone who enters your home. Do you want to kill those who enter the country illegally? Same situation, right?

But the topic is guns, not illegal immigration.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

The second amendment just says 'arms' not guns. perhaps it meant atomic bombs, nerve gas or other WMD's?

Of course, we both know it really doesn't mean that.

Nor does it mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry guns.

It was clearly about organized militias for the protection of the freedom of the people, which is different from everyone, even those not in militias, carrying a weapon.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house. They also aren't selling you drugs or shooting you.

Arms, in 18th Century parlance is short for FIREarms. That means guns. And YES, it does mean citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. And, that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which means putting laws and regulations in place to impede them from exercising that right.

Please, stop making up crap to support your anti-gun stance.

So, in the 18th century, they didn't have swords knives, spears, arrows, battle axes, maces, ballistas, bombs and canon? You know, arms, short for ARMamentS.

Also, I'm fairly sure that it isn't legally valid to chop up a single legal clause int little sub-sections and apply that meaning. Generally sentences go together and each paragraph or clause has a primary subject to which all the stipulations relate.

The right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Otherwise the 2nd amendment could be taken to mean arm the criminally insane and I'm sure they didn't intend that.

FIREarms is what was meant in that amendment. Your attempt to deflect to other items is beneath you to be honest.

And, seem the U.S> SCOTUS (the real deciders of the law here in the U.S.) have ruled in the Heller case that it does apply to INDIVIDUAL citizens, and is NOT dependent upon them being in a militia.

You are really contorting and twisting here to beat a dead horse because you don't like it's color.

Give it a rest. You simply do NOT understand our Constitutional amendment, so just admit it already. Accept the fact that we in this country have the RIGHT to own firearms, and are protected from our government taking them by our supreme law.

Sheesh.

The idea of a well regulated militia keeping the government honest sounds fair, even in an age where the government probably out-guns the population in any one trouble spot.

That is why a militia can be effective where armed individuals cannot do anything other than cause local anarchy and pointless death.

You mean an authorized and approved militia? And who would be in charge of that approval and authorization? You guessed it - the government. If the government were really doing wrong things and were tyrannical, which is the potential scenario we're talking about, to how many militias do you think they woud grant authorization? If you said none, you guessed that correctly as well.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

You mean an authorized and approved militia? And who would be in charge of that approval and authorization? You guessed it - the government.

Yes. As defined in the Constitution.
You know, the one that includes the 2nd amendment?

a reply to: Phage

Whether a gun is illegal or not depends, you took the works right out of my mouth. Thanks!

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Except that you didn't say that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

You mean an authorized and approved militia? And who would be in charge of that approval and authorization? You guessed it - the government.

Yes. As defined in the Constitution.
You know, the one that includes the 2nd amendment?

You mean that 2nd amendment which states I have the right to own a gun, period. It doesn't say I have to go through any rigamarole to fulfill my right to own it, correct?

That comment of yours I responded to, was the one previous to the one you posted and thought I was actually responding to. You're just too fast of a typer for me to keep up with! I should have clarified which comment I was responding to. That was my fault.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

You mean that 2nd amendment which states I have the right to own a gun, period. It doesn't say I have to go through any rigamarole to fulfill my right to own it, correct?

Yeah. That's the one. The one that includes that thing about the militia. Which is defined quite well in the original document.

I take it to mean that the federal government was too broke to buy weapons for that very militia so it was ok for them to use their own, if the need arose for them to do the things that the Constitution said they were supposed to do (like suppress insurrection and stuff). I take it to mean that it applies to the militia.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Enforcing our laws is Tyranny?
Some might suggest we enforce our laws as is the custom of every civilized society.
Perhaps those wanting to live here could respect the laws of the nation they want to make a life in?

Otherwise they should go.

Your laws, based upon your Constitution, grant birthright citizenship.

Fourteenth amendment, first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

SO, the child can legally stay, but the illegal parent? How do you reconcile that without allowing someone to freely break the law without any punishment?

I think it is reasonable that if someone is undocumented, is not committing crimes, is gainfully employed, is cooperating legally and socially, and is paying, or will pay tax, then they should have the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship through naturalization.

See, that is the problem, clearly defined out of your mouth. If I were to think that other criminals such as people owning illegal machine guns should be left alone, I can think that, right? According to you, it's just what we think, not whether it goes against the law, eh? That's not how it works and how it was set up to work. You know that.

The second amendment just says 'arms' not guns. perhaps it meant atomic bombs, nerve gas or other WMD's?

Of course, we both know it really doesn't mean that.

Nor does it mean that every citizen should be allowed to carry guns.

It was clearly about organized militias for the protection of the freedom of the people, which is different from everyone, even those not in militias, carrying a weapon.

So, you're saying that if I illegally break into to your house to live there, against your wishes, that would be all right with you? That would be great! My roof leaks and I'm tired of putting up with it. I'll see you soon.

They aren't breaking in to your house. They also aren't selling you drugs or shooting you.

Arms, in 18th Century parlance is short for FIREarms. That means guns. And YES, it does mean citizens have the right to possess and carry firearms. And, that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which means putting laws and regulations in place to impede them from exercising that right.

Please, stop making up crap to support your anti-gun stance.

So, in the 18th century, they didn't have swords knives, spears, arrows, battle axes, maces, ballistas, bombs and canon? You know, arms, short for ARMamentS.

Also, I'm fairly sure that it isn't legally valid to chop up a single legal clause int little sub-sections and apply that meaning. Generally sentences go together and each paragraph or clause has a primary subject to which all the stipulations relate.

The right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Otherwise the 2nd amendment could be taken to mean arm the criminally insane and I'm sure they didn't intend that.

FIREarms is what was meant in that amendment. Your attempt to deflect to other items is beneath you to be honest.

And, seem the U.S> SCOTUS (the real deciders of the law here in the U.S.) have ruled in the Heller case that it does apply to INDIVIDUAL citizens, and is NOT dependent upon them being in a militia.

You are really contorting and twisting here to beat a dead horse because you don't like it's color.

Give it a rest. You simply do NOT understand our Constitutional amendment, so just admit it already. Accept the fact that we in this country have the RIGHT to own firearms, and are protected from our government taking them by our supreme law.

Sheesh.

The idea of a well regulated militia keeping the government honest sounds fair, even in an age where the government probably out-guns the population in any one trouble spot.

That is why a militia can be effective where armed individuals cannot do anything other than cause local anarchy and pointless death.

You mean an authorized and approved militia? And who would be in charge of that approval and authorization? You guessed it - the government. If the government were really doing wrong things and were tyrannical, which is the potential scenario we're talking about, to how many militias do you think they woud grant authorization? If you said none, you guessed that correctly as well.

Then, wouldn't that even negate any worth in the 2nd amendment if even citizen militia cannot defend citizen rights?

a reply to: ErEhWoN
its the NRA, where there is gun there is NRA, where there is mass shootings there is NRA, Even our president is chosen by NRA, he can not stop NRA. we the people mus unite and stand against our corrupt political system that is killing 40000 of our people annually

a reply to: MichaelAdams

Lol, tell me this is a joke.

There has been exactly zero mass shootings by anyone affiliated with the NRA.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah. That's the one. The one that includes that thing about the militia. Which is defined quite well in the original document. I take it to mean that the federal government was too broke to buy weapons for that very militia so it was ok for them to use their own, if the need arose for them to do the things that the Constitution said they were supposed to do (like suppress insurrection and stuff). I take it to mean that it applies to the militia.

Oh man, if that's what you think you're quite ignorant. Do you know what the first draft of the constitution said?

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

That was the first draft. Here's what jefferson said about 30 years after the constitution was law:

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

Here's what james madison had to say about it when the constitution passed:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

James madison also talked at length about the 2nd amendment and explained what it meant during the ratification process:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Then there was Richard Henry Lee (you know, the guy that actually started the move for independence with the lee resolution):

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

And we'll wrap up with samuel adams at the ratification convention:
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Now that you've been corrected and it cannot be argued that a militia is any exclusive term which the founders meant to use to preclude americans from buying military weapons (unless you want to argue that only men should be armed), I expect to never see you perpetuate this false narrative about the 2nd amendment again.

a reply to: MichaelAdams

Would you like to know how many NRA members have gone on a mass shooting rampage???

It's a really, really small number. Here it is:


Exactly ZERO. As in none. Zip. Zilch. NONE.

If you're going to make up your own facts, at least try for some plausibility.