waitforufo

Again, the citizens of the United States are free to amend the constitution. They are also capable of calling a constitutional convention and rewriting the entire thing. I wish those citizens that desire to do either of those things good luck.

What exactly am I denying? I think it is funny that you insist on putting words in my mouth when I am simply defending my natural rights. Rights recognized in my nations constitution and supported by Supreme Court rulings. Recent modern rulings. Those Supreme court rulings are common laws, by the way, which hold more weight then statutory law because common laws nullify statutory laws. Being from the UK one would think that you would understand that. You are simply making a fool of yourself by denying those facts. If you were capable of reason on this subject rather than emotion you would understand I not complicit in any of these accidental deaths. No more than I am complicit in swimming pool drownings.

BTW, thank you for demonstrating you enthusiasm for eliminating individual rights. Because in the United States, public health is dependent on the security of the free state. You just won't give up on putting words in my mouth. Keep it up. I think it is funny. Also, I have encouraged those desiring gun control to attempt to amend the constitution. I have wished them good luck. The US army's last big recruitment campaign was centered on the phrase "an army of one" So why not a militia of one? Again John, the people are in charge in the USA. Can someone please explain to John Cuthber that I am simply defending my natural rights, and following the laws of my country.

Really, that is all you got left?

The Supreme Court has a long history of expanding the rights of the people. Cases like Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Strickland v. Washington, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, etc. While I don't have the case at the tip of my fingers but, gay marriage is another example. A 5 to 4 example that I'm sure will stick. So are DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. What you are suggesting is that the Supreme Court will start diminishing the rights of the people. Good luck. Oh yeah I missed this one. Militia victories? The militia has been in a constant state of victory since 1776. The UK, France, Germany and Australia have different systems then ours. Personally I don't care for them. Also, maybe that is why we have to bail them out of the bloodiest wars in history. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edit --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On further thought Red Leader, I have to disagree with you on locus standi. You cannot claim locus standi against laws that don't exist.

Maybe the grammar police can explain their understanding of the Constitution. Yet you provide no argument based on law at all. While this is true, it is uncommon. Again, look up "stare decisis". You have Google don't you?

I have never said this. Some claim that the militia does not exist. I and overtone have pointed out that it does. Some claim that "well regulated" means controlled by government. I and overtone have demonstrated that it does not. Some claim that the right to keep and bear arms was intended for military purposes only. I have provided Supreme Court precedent setting rulings that clearly state that the second amendment applies to an individuals right for self defense. Some claim that the second amendment was not intended to include modern firearms. I have show that the Supreme Court has ruled that it covers ordinary military weapons. I have also pointed out that Heller and McDonald, where the court ruled that the second amendment covers the individual right to self defense, is likely to expand the definition of the arms covered. Does your open mind except the above.

Like I said, life is full of risks. Generations of my family have own, used, and kept firearms in there home. No problems yet. Loving my liberty. Who is angry or venting? Blogs like these are simply sound and fury,signifying nothing. Sure we can learn a bit if we are open minded, but that is it.

And yet pools are still 100 times more dangerous than guns. For a regulation to make it to the Supreme Court, someone has to have standing and bring a case that takes time. Will they eventually be overturned? So far the track record is very good at overturning them. Only time will tell. Because I have a life, but I have answered them now. I understand the question completely. Unicorns don't exist. The militia does. That is why it is a BS question. The Supreme Court's genesis is from the people. You and the gun control crowd are trying to make things worse. I look forward to hearing your proposed new firearms rules and regulations that will not only pass the second amendment but all the Supreme Court precedents I have mentioned. Have fun.

Come on guys. I can't wait to hear them. Maybe you will have the same luck initiative 676 had in dark blue Washington State. http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Handgun_Trigger_Locks,_Initiative_676_(1997) http://gunwars.news21.com/2014/washington-voters-have-choice-two-ways-to-conduct-gun-checks/ Will Hillary or Bernie make sure this is at the top of the Democratic platform? I can't wait.

Guys, go ahead. So are you going to go big and try to amend the constitution, or are you going to try to nibble a way at it with a series of regulations. Good luck with either approach. You will never get the States to repeal or modify the second amendment. If you try to nibble away at it every regulation will find it's way to the Supreme Court where you will likely lose. My guess is the words 'shall not be infringed' will be your biggest obstacle.

Still a BS question, but if the Supreme Court would have ruled in that way it would be the law of the land regardless of my opinion. There is no requirement for the law to be based on logic or reason. It is what it is. Perhaps instead of living in fairy land you should focus on what they did say. Great definitions, so why are you having a problem? The relevance is that it is a simple historical fact. Watch your vid again. I liked the part where he said something like "The government said no more guns and we said OK." You see here in the US we tell the government what to do. Just a cultural difference I guess. Yeah, I'm just like those people that leave swimming pools lying around there property. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/ Life is full of risks.

Its a BS example. They never said that and never would. Try harder. One pulls or tugs his forelock to those born better then they are. You know, like the Queen. That is why I don't keep mine in a safe.

Yes if does matter if you are not on the Supreme Court. You are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions are just that opinions, which are no more important than mine. I have defended my opinions with Supreme Court rulings and American history. Please do the same. Funny guy. I watched the whole thing. Thanks for the entertainment. Again, one man's opinion. I'm not surprised that an forelock puller is against guns. They always have been.

Are you on the Supreme Court? Also, since Miller and McDonald both clearly defined the right to keep and bear arms an individual right for the purposes of self defense, it is more likely that the definition of arms would be expanded not contracted. Finally we currently have 50 states, which is an addition of 37 states from the ratification of the US constitution. Congress approves state hood, which includes the review and approval of State constitutions. All those states include there own equivalent of the second amendment. Don't count on the Supreme Court overturning those Congress approved State constitutions particularly after Heller and McDonald. Lets look at Alaska which was admitted into the Union in 1959 "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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."

So was Miranda v. Arizona, So were a lot of other decisions. So what. Maybe you should look up "stare decisis."

US v. Miller was decided in 1939. The ruling is clear with regard to ordinary military equipment. Yes, I think that is what the founders had in mind. It is not probably and individual right. DC v.Heller stated the following "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." McDonald v. City of Chicago decided that Heller applied to all the States and and confirms that "individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right". I pointed out Heller and McDonald back in post #171. 347 posts later, and you gun control advocates still can't accept reality.

US v. Miller defined arms as "ordinary military equipment" that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

They are willfully denying the well understood meanings of the words "militia" and "well regulated" because it destroys there arguments.

Yes there is a militia. The militia all all the people of the United States. The militia is well regulated when the people own their own arms and are practiced in there use. Yes John, I may be one of those "criminals, crazies, or suicidals" next week. That is why we have laws against convicted criminals and people adjudicated "crazies" from having guns. Until they have been convicted or adjudicated they have the same rights as everyone else. We love our liberty that much. We also have laws against suicide so that suicidal people can be stopped from committing suicide. Otherwise no one could stop them. Such mistakes should make our police and courts more vigilant in prosecuting the law, They do not justify further continuance of such mistakes, nor to they justify eliminating the rights of the people. Are you suggesting otherwise?

The amendment says I can keep and bear arms. It also says that right shall not be infringed. Seems simple to me. I know it is not what some want, but too bad for them. Also, why should my rights be denied because of the actions of the actions of "criminals, crazies and suicidal's" You see in the United States we would prefer to let many criminals go unpunished then let one innocent be punished. That's because the rights good are not predicated on the rights of "criminals, crazies and suicidal's"

Until very recently, 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright, courts were not required to appoint lawyers to defendants who could not afford them. Until very recently, 1966, Miranda v. Arizona, the police did not have to read a criminal suspect their constitutional rights. Until very recently, 1984, Strickland v. Washington, defendants had no right to effective council. Until very recently, 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut, birth control was not protected by an individual’s right to privacy. Until very recently, 1973, Roe v. Wade, abortion was not protected by an individual’s right to privacy Just pointing out that your "until very recently" comment is meaningless BS. I'm sure there was a lot of "common ground" and "majority opinion" that disagreed with all the above supreme court rulings. Second Amendment: "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. I know you refuse to accept that the common definition of the words "well regulated" in no way implies controlled by government, and you insist that the second amendment allows for infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but I hope you can at least understand that the recent common ground of the majority has no bearing on my rights.

One must deny another person's rights because he sees a doctor?

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Maybe those people would seek treatment if their rights weren't denied by doing so.