Yay, GUNS!

[dimreepr]

Isn't democracy great!

 

 

 

Yay guns...

[waitforufo]

Since my point was that only the most rabid and extreme on this topic seem to get involved in voting and that's why despite overwhelming public support the status quo continues, your introduction of the concept of democracy into this exchange seems misplaced.

Yeah, Yeah, you are big on the rabid and extreme but you fail to accept the tentative lukewarm support for gun control. Let's look at your own words again.

 

A much simpler explanation is that while 80-90% of the populace support stricter regulations, it's not an intensity issue for most. There are probably 10 or 12 other things they care about more like the economy and jobs and being able to feed their families or keep a roof over their head. While it's a major issue in the U.S. relative to other nations, and while millions of people would like to see these senseless killings mitigated and gun control improved, it just doesn't affect the lives of most of the people on a daily basis. It doesn't animate them to organize and strategize or head to the polls in buses en masse.

So in your own words 80-90% of people would rank gun control in 11th to 13th place in a list of political or life importance to them. So in other words, they don't care. In your own words "it just doesn't affect the lives of most people."

 

As I continue to point out, the politicians this 80-90% group continues to vote for keeps making firearms ownership less controlled and concealed carry more available. So while you claim "80-90% of the populace support stricter regulations" its more likely that they are simply saying that to make annoying gun control advocates go away. In the mean time their voting shows they are simply shining gun control advocates on.

 

But for you gun control is a hot button issue. So explain to me again who, between the two of us, is "rabid and extreme"?

 

 

Yay guns...

I'm glad to see I'm making converts.

[iNow]

But for you gun control is a hot button issue. So explain to me again who, between the two of us, is "rabid and extreme"?

Recognizing it to be an important issue and one with tremendous opportunity for rapid improvement (while in parallel still respecting individual rights and showing deference to the constitution) is not equivalent to treating it as a hot button issue.

 

I would suggest it's strange that you would insinuate such a thing were I not so familiar with your predictable habit of lumping diverse and nuanced viewpoints together into crude, oversimplified, paste-eatingly ignorant buckets then summarily dismissing them all as one.

 

Likewise, if you genuinely feel anything I've posted on this topic is "rabid and extreme" and you're not, in fact, just being a douchy obnoxious ass, then the onus is on you to use the handy quote feature offered by the forum software here to point out exactly where and how.

 

Until then, it's trivially obvious that you're doing little more than casting shade using a pathetically weak and exceedingly dim light.

 

Edited December 19, 2015 by iNow

[waitforufo]

You challenged me to find anything you posted in this topic that was "rabid and extreme". Here you go, and thanks for making the finding so easy.

 

Recognizing it to be an important issue and one with tremendous opportunity for rapid improvement (while in parallel still respecting individual rights and showing deference to the constitution) is not equivalent to treating it as a hot button issue.

I would suggest it's strange that you would insinuate such a thing were I not so familiar with your predictable habit of lumping diverse and nuanced viewpoints together into crude, oversimplified, paste-eatingly ignorant buckets then summarily dismissing them all as one.

Likewise, if you genuinely feel anything I've posted on this topic is "rabid and extreme" and you're not, in fact, just being a douchy obnoxious ass, then the onus is on you to use the handy quote feature offered by the forum software here to point out exactly where and how.

Until then, it's trivially obvious that you're doing little more than casting shade using a pathetically weak and exceedingly dim light.

Oh snap, my feelings are so hurt. LOL

 

I'm sure it was hard to read in your own words that gun control "[is] not an intensity issue for most" and that "There are probably 10 or 12 other things they care about more". Is climate change 11?

 

Yet you continue to insist that gun control is an important issue that the majority of people want.

 

Why is it that liberals always find political topics that the people don't want to be "diverse and nuanced" when in reality they are simple and straight forward? Your own words show the people rank it low on their priority list no matter how hard liberals try to convince them that the topic is "diverse and nuanced."

[dimreepr]

I'm glad to see I'm making converts.

 

 

Ohh, I’m not a convert, I’ve always loved guns; I’m just happier to have gun ‘controls’ exclude the “rabid and extreme” from owning them; hmmm... Why are you so worried?

Edited December 19, 2015 by dimreepr

[iNow]

You challenged me to find anything you posted in this topic that was "rabid and extreme". Here you go, and thanks for making the finding so easy.

Our criteria for what reasonably constitutes rabid and extreme clearly differ.

 

I'm sure it was hard to read in your own words that gun control "[is] not an intensity issue for most" and that "There are probably 10 or 12 other things they care about more". Is climate change 11?

 

Yet you continue to insist that gun control is an important issue that the majority of people want.

 

Why is it that liberals always find political topics that the people don't want to be "diverse and nuanced" when in reality they are simple and straight forward? Your own words show the people rank it low on their priority list no matter how hard liberals try to convince them that the topic is "diverse and nuanced."

 

Are you suggesting that humans are incapable of considering multiple topics at once, ordering them based on personal priority, yet simultaneously recognizing each (regardless of their rank on that list) to be important, worthy of focus, and deserving of action? If not, then your reply is irrelevant. If so, then your reply is self-evidently mistaken. Which is it?

 

Likewise, do you not comprehend that something can be both nuanced and diverse while also being a lower priority among other elements in the set being considered?

 

For context, I'm mostly trying to understand if I can engage you like a rational and intelligent adult (as I know you are in at least some aspects of your life) or if I should write you off as a petulant child not worth engaging (as you consistently present yourself to be on this and a handful of other topics like climate change).

Edited December 19, 2015 by iNow

[waitforufo]

For context, I'm mostly trying to understand if I can engage you like a rational and intelligent adult (as I know you are in at least some aspects of your life) or if I should write you off as a petulant child not worth engaging (as you consistently present yourself to be on this and a handful of other topics like climate change).

Who is the one throwing temper tantrums and calling people names? Aren't these the actions of a petulant child?

 

I simply disagree with you regarding gun control. I think we have too much of it already. Far more than our founders intended. You don't like that so you lash out and try to bully me of the forum. How is that working?

 

Are you suggesting that humans are incapable of considering multiple topics at once, ordering them based on personal priority, yet simultaneously recognizing each (regardless of their rank on that list) to be important, worthy of focus, and deserving of action? If not, then your reply is irrelevant. If so, then your reply is self-evidently mistaken. Which is it?

 

Likewise, do you not comprehend that something can be both nuanced and diverse while also being a lower priority among other elements in the set being considered?

You and I both understand perfectly well that political action is unlikely to happen for topics that the people hold in low priority. Showing that you understand that through your own words is has lead to your latest emotional outburst.

 

This canard about nuanced and diverse is simply a tactic to get your way bit by bit. I, and many like me, are not going to give even a little bit of our liberty away. We hold our liberty dear. We understand that once it is lot, you don't get it back. That by the way is a liberal idea. Too bad modern liberals and progressives have forgotten that.

[iNow]

The primary point of disagreement between us is in the notion of liberty. I recognize, and have even pointed out to you directly here with evidence and specific examples, that all freedoms have limits, including each within the bill of rights itself. Their are limits on our speech, limits on our practice of religion, limits on the press, limits on our protections against search and seizure, limits among our rights against self-incrimination, and also limits on firearms, including limits on type, usage, and acquisition.

 

The point of this discussion is to determine where those limits on type, usage, and acquisition should be set and how they might be amended in ways that still respect individual liberties while also addressing our rampant problem of needless citizen death from firearms among adults and children, criminals and non-criminals, urban and rural, police and citizens, and all manner of other groups. Beyond that, I am capable of maturely recognizing that even within such limits we do still enjoy liberty and that even within certain regulations we are still free.

 

Further to that point... Yes, I recognize that we seem to disagree, but probably not as much as you like to imply. The circles of our respective Venn diagrams are not entirely separate. Despite that, however, you choose not to approach the discussion in good faith and you choose to continue framing this as us/them or liberal/conservative, which is frankly both silly and inaccurate.

 

In the end, I find your argument lacking because you consistently retreat back to the idea that ANY regulation is a direct assault and infringement on your personal liberties despite the fact that we both live in a world where such limits are already in place for every single right. It's nonsensical to posit as you continue to do that zero limits are allowable on the subject of guns since in reality all rights have limits. This is one of the ways that I define rabid and extreme.

Edited December 19, 2015 by iNow

[waitforufo]

Shall not be infringed.

[zapatos]

Shall not be infringed.

As I mentioned to you once before, that phrase was not written in isolation. It is part of a larger document, which includes the following phrase:

 

...rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of LIFE, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...

 

By responding to iNow's post in such a simplistic way, ignoring every point he made, makes it appear you are trolling or willfully ignorant.

[John Cuthber]

Shall not be infringed.

That phrase is dependent on the assumption that it's needed for a "well ordered militia".

Well, you don't have one.

[Ten oz]

Who is the one throwing temper tantrums and calling people names? Aren't these the actions of a petulant child?

 

I simply disagree with you regarding gun control. I think we have too much of it already. Far more than our founders intended. You don't like that so you lash out and try to bully me of the forum. How is that working?

What our founders intended is treated in the most reverent yet amorphous ways by the majority of people who invoke their intentions. The Constitution established the United States as Republic where only white male land owners could vote and minorities could bought and sold as property. People invoke the founders with a sense of righteousness purity yet much of what they intended has already been tossed out or amended. The 2nd Amendment gets put on a thorn as some sort of sacred calf. We are expected to narrowly interpret law based on how the founders felt about muskets in the late 1700's. Just forget context and extenuating circumstances of time like the country forming a standing army, cities and counties now having armed law enforcement departments, states having full time militias, and the fact that the standard "gun" back in those days took a trained person 20-30 seconds to load a single shot. No, all that matters is "shall not be infringed". Imagine if everything is the Constitution was treated the way you are treating the 2nd Admendment.

 

 

 

You and I both understand perfectly well that political action is unlikely to happen for topics that the people hold in low priority. Showing that you understand that through your own words is has lead to your latest emotional outburst.

 

This canard about nuanced and diverse is simply a tactic to get your way bit by bit. I, and many like me, are not going to give even a little bit of our liberty away. We hold our liberty dear. We understand that once it is lot, you don't get it back. That by the way is a liberal idea. Too bad modern liberals and progressives have forgotten that.

 

Federalist judges have played a much larger role in the gun debate than has the will of the people. Doing so it one of the organizations mission statements. Whether you feel it is a high or low priority to the average person is irrelevant. Change will come soon as federalist judges lose their majority in the courts. Once that happens states and cities (states rights) will be able to start changing laws in a way that over time will move the needle.

[waitforufo]

...rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of LIFE, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...

 

We have the right to keep and bear arms to preserve our lives, the lives of our loved ones, and the lives of our neighbors.

 

That phrase is dependent on the assumption that it's needed for a "well ordered militia".

Well, you don't have one.

John, you and I have gone over this "well ordered militia" many times. It would be silly to go over it again. I simply encourage you to read Heller v. DC.

 

What our founders intended is treated in the most reverent yet amorphous ways by the majority of people who invoke their intentions. The Constitution established the United States as Republic where only white male land owners could vote and minorities could bought and sold as property. People invoke the founders with a sense of righteousness purity yet much of what they intended has already been tossed out or amended. The 2nd Amendment gets put on a thorn as some sort of sacred calf. We are expected to narrowly interpret law based on how the founders felt about muskets in the late 1700's. Just forget context and extenuating circumstances of time like the country forming a standing army, cities and counties now having armed law enforcement departments, states having full time militias, and the fact that the standard "gun" back in those days took a trained person 20-30 seconds to load a single shot. No, all that matters is "shall not be infringed".

 

The founders were people of their time. Yet they created a country, conceived in liberty, and based on principals that liberated much of the world. Having experienced the outrages of government, they enshrined in the constitution the power of the people. The second amendment is the hallmark of the power of the people over government. They restricted the power of government by enumerating it's powers, there by limiting it's power. The second amendment includes the phrase "shall not be infringed" to specifically restrict the power of government over the people's right to keep and bear arms.

 

Your argument about muskets is nonsense. At our founding the people not only had muskets, they also had Kentucky long rifles. The most modern and accurate of weapons of their time. I'm sure the founders would always want the people to have the most modern and accurate of weapons because abuse by government is ever present. Just look around the modern world.

 

The police are government. Our constitution does not start out "We the government."

 

Imagine if everything is the Constitution was treated the way you are treating the 2nd Admendment.

Imagine if it were not. An unrestricted government. Doesn't sound like paradise to me.

 

Federalist judges have played a much larger role in the gun debate than has the will of the people. Doing so it one of the organizations mission statements. Whether you feel it is a high or low priority to the average person is irrelevant. Change will come soon as federalist judges lose their majority in the courts. Once that happens states and cities (states rights) will be able to start changing laws in a way that over time will move the needle.

What you are longing for here is the end of the United States of America. The name of our nation is federalist. The constitution goes out of its way to define the powers of the federal government, states, and the people. If you have any doubt, read the tenth amendment.

[dimreepr]

We have the right to keep and bear arms to preserve our lives, the lives of our loved ones, and the lives of our neighbors.

 

 

When has your life or anyone you know, ever been truly threatened? Let alone that threat being, honestly, alleviated by a gun?

 

No doubt your reply will have some instance/threat that you could twist but since you have never, along with 99.9% of the western populace, killed anyone with a gun; what level of threat do you REALLY face that NEEDS a gun.

 

We know by now that you like guns (as do I) but wanting/liking guns doesn't equate too NEED?

[zapatos]

We have the right to keep and bear arms to preserve our lives, the lives of our loved ones, and the lives of our neighbors.

 

I would have thought that by now you would have realized there are other people in this country, besides gun owners, who have a right to preservation of life. Continually ignoring this aspect of the Constitution and this aspect of the arguments of others, is getting old.

[Ten oz]

 

The founders were people of their time. Yet they created a country, conceived in liberty, and based on principals that liberated much of the world. Having experienced the outrages of government, they enshrined in the constitution the power of the people. The second amendment is the hallmark of the power of the people over government. They restricted the power of government by enumerating it's powers, there by limiting it's power. The second amendment includes the phrase "shall not be infringed" to specifically restrict the power of government over the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Shall we stand down the Armed Forces of the United States? After all wasn't it the founders intentions to have the people of the United States form militias as neccessary? They (founders) never intended for standing armies.

 

 

 

Your argument about muskets is nonsense. At our founding the people not only had muskets, they also had Kentucky long rifles. The most modern and accurate of weapons of their time. I'm sure the founders would always want the people to have the most modern and accurate of weapons because abuse by government is ever present. Just look around the modern world.

The founders would always want the people to have the most modern and accurate weapons? Why do we limit people to guns then? There are many weapons out there far superior to guns.

 

 

 

The police are government. Our constitution does not start out "We the government."

 

Imagine if it were not. An unrestricted government. Doesn't sound like paradise to me.

The right of the people and states rights are mushed together. Power of the federal govt was restricted so that the will of elites in Philadelphia wouldn't be able to dictate over farmers in South Carolina. Not so that South Carolinia would be prevented from having it own leadership. Today states, counties, and cities are all heavily armed. State militias, state police, county sheriffs, local police departments are all heavily armed and under the authority of local elected leadership. When we talk about government infringing upon rights as outlined by the constitution as intended by the founders are we talking about the federal government. Because just up until the 1960's several states still were allowed to infringe people based on race. Not only that but the supreme court first recognized guns as an individual right 2008. The constitution is about people being free to self govern without being lorded over by the federal government. As I previously pointed out only land owners were even given the right to vote and minorities had no right at all when the Constitution was written. The Constitution outline a means by which multiple local governments and corporate to be one nation while remaining free and independent of centerlized leadership. The Constitution was not of promise of no government authority on any level.

[waitforufo]

When has your life or anyone you know, ever been truly threatened? Let alone that threat being, honestly, alleviated by a gun?

My son had a methamphetamine problem. I pulled him out of a drug house, just an abandoned shack really, and brought him home to dry him out and find him a rehab. My son told me he had drug debts, so I started carrying a gun. When his dealers found where my son was they, two or three at a time, came calling to collect his drug debts. They also visited my wife at her place of work as well. During that period, there were several times where I and my wife were glad to have guns, We both carried, and brandished them on three separate occasions. By the way I did contact the police and they told me if I paid them they would just come back for more money, so carry a gun and use it as needed.

 

 

No doubt your reply will have some instance/threat that you could twist but since you have never, along with 99.9% of the western populace, killed anyone with a gun; what level of threat do you REALLY face that NEEDS a gun.

 

We know by now that you like guns (as do I) but wanting/liking guns doesn't equate too NEED?

Government exists, so the people need guns. It is simply part of the checks and balances built into our constitution. Why do you find it inconceivable that government can go bad? Have you not studied history?

 

I would have thought that by now you would have realized there are other people in this country, besides gun owners, who have a right to preservation of life. Continually ignoring this aspect of the Constitution and this aspect of the arguments of others, is getting old.

Nothing forces these "other people" to own firearms. The law abiding are morally bound to render assistance to these people in their time of need. Even those who choose to be weak. Even those who somehow believe that being weak is noble.

 

Shall we stand down the Armed Forces of the United States? After all wasn't it the founders intentions to have the people of the United States form militias as neccessary? They (founders) never intended for standing armies.

 

The founders would always want the people to have the most modern and accurate weapons? Why do we limit people to guns then? There are many weapons out there far superior to guns.

 

The right of the people and states rights are mushed together. Power of the federal govt was restricted so that the will of elites in Philadelphia wouldn't be able to dictate over farmers in South Carolina. Not so that South Carolinia would be prevented from having it own leadership. Today states, counties, and cities are all heavily armed. State militias, state police, county sheriffs, local police departments are all heavily armed and under the authority of local elected leadership. When we talk about government infringing upon rights as outlined by the constitution as intended by the founders are we talking about the federal government. Because just up until the 1960's several states still were allowed to infringe people based on race. Not only that but the supreme court first recognized guns as an individual right 2008. The constitution is about people being free to self govern without being lorded over by the federal government. As I previously pointed out only land owners were even given the right to vote and minorities had no right at all when the Constitution was written. The Constitution outline a means by which multiple local governments and corporate to be one nation while remaining free and independent of centerlized leadership. The Constitution was not of promise of no government authority on any level.

Standing armies only increase the need of the people to keep and bear arms. Why do you find it inconceivable that government can go bad. Have you not studied history?

 

We limit weapons to guns because guns are sufficient.

 

You need to spend a little more time reading the constitutions of the states. They guarantee self defense and/or the right to keep and bear arms as well.

[dimreepr]

 

My son had a methamphetamine problem. I pulled him out of a drug house, just an abandoned shack really, and brought him home to dry him out and find him a rehab. My son told me he had drug debts, so I started carrying a gun. When his dealers found where my son was they, two or three at a time, came calling to collect his drug debts. They also visited my wife at her place of work as well. During that period, there were several times where I and my wife were glad to have guns, We both carried, and brandished them on three separate occasions. By the way I did contact the police and they told me if I paid them they would just come back for more money, so carry a gun and use it as needed.

 

 

It’s easy to invent a story like that, on the tinternet, but if there were no guns available, wouldn’t a sword do?

 

 

Government exists, so the people need guns. It is simply part of the checks and balances built into our constitution. Why do you find it inconceivable that government can go bad? Have you not studied history?

 

 

 

 

I’m from England and have almost no access to a gun, unless I pass numerous tests; and as yet my government has decided not to try kill me despite our history, why has yours?

Just to add, we are a country born of tyrants, you are a country born of democracy; so why is it you’re the one who fears the past?

Edited December 23, 2015 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

 

 

Nothing forces these "other people" to own firearms. The law abiding are morally bound to render assistance to these people in their time of need. Even those who choose to be weak. Even those who somehow believe that being weak is noble.

 

 

I am obviously not making myself clear. The people who don't choose to own guns have every bit as much right to the preservation of life as those who choose to own guns. When your rights interfere with my right to preservation of life, then the government has the Constitutional right to regulate your rights. That is why you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowed theater. If the right to own guns interferes with the rights of others to preserve their lives, then the government can regulate guns.

 

You seem to think that the right to bear arms is somehow more important than other rights. It is not. They are equal, and as the old saying goes, your rights end where my rights begin.

[waitforufo]

I am obviously not making myself clear. The people who don't choose to own guns have every bit as much right to the preservation of life as those who choose to own guns. When your rights interfere with my right to preservation of life, then the government has the Constitutional right to regulate your rights. That is why you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowed theater. If the right to own guns interferes with the rights of others to preserve their lives, then the government can regulate guns.

 

You seem to think that the right to bear arms is somehow more important than other rights. It is not. They are equal, and as the old saying goes, your rights end where my rights begin.

My right to own firearms has no impact on you whatsoever. If I used my firearms in that way I would have been committing felonies. Then you could have me arrested and my rights can then be reduced by due process. Felons are not allowed to own guns. I am a law abiding citizen. As long as I remain law abiding I should be able to enjoy my rights. If you don't like that, too bad.

 

It’s easy to invent a story like that, on the tinternet, but if there were no guns available, wouldn’t a sword do?

You asked. I don't care if you believe me.

Why would I carry a sword when carrying a firearm is legal? Besides, its much easier to deal with two or three criminals at once with a gun than with a sword.

 

 

I’m from England and have almost no access to a gun, unless I pass numerous tests; and as yet my government has decided not to try kill me despite our history, why has yours?

Just to add, we are a country born of tyrants, you are a country born of democracy; so why is it you’re the one who fears the past?

We are a country born of your tyrants as well, We decided to cast them off by force of arms. We learned a lesson from this experience. One of those lessons was never listen to the subjects of a crown when they speak of giving up your arms. Something about not believing that some people are born better than others makes us hold our liberties dear.

[zapatos]

 

My right to own firearms has no impact on you whatsoever. If I used my firearms in that way I would have been committing felonies. Then you could have me arrested and my rights can then be reduced by due process. Felons are not allowed to own guns. I am a law abiding citizen. As long as I remain law abiding I should be able to enjoy my rights. If you don't like that, too bad.

 

Whether or not I like it is irrelevant. The right of Americans to own firearms most certainly does impact people. As you'll recall, "Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% die)". That is 20 people per day who are impacted by your right to own firearms.

 

And as you are so fond of citing Heller, let's not forget this little nugget; “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

 

​If you wish to say "too bad, I like my guns and I'm going to keep them", that is fine. But don't pretend the Constitution gives you unfettered rights to keep and bear arms. It does not. You know it, we know it, and the Supreme Court certainly knows it.

[dimreepr]

You asked. I don't care if you believe me.

Why would I carry a sword when carrying a firearm is legal? Besides, its much easier to deal with two or three criminals at once with a gun than with a sword.

 

 

We are a country born of your tyrants as well, We decided to cast them off by force of arms. We learned a lesson from this experience. One of those lessons was never listen to the subjects of a crown when they speak of giving up your arms. Something about not believing that some people are born better than others makes us hold our liberties dear.

 

 

 

If those criminals actually intended you harm then they will, probably, whatever your weapon because they’ll have the same.

 

And yet you fail to see which one is more threatening to its people.

For a democracy to become a threat to the majority of its people, it first needs to become an autocracy.

[Ten oz]

Standing armies only increase the need of the people to keep and bear arms. Why do you find it inconceivable that government can go bad. Have you not studied history?

 

We limit weapons to guns because guns are sufficient.

 

You need to spend a little more time reading the constitutions of the states. They guarantee self defense and/or the right to keep and bear arms as well.

 

You are treating all forms of govt the same without making any delineation between federal and local. The founders were not anarchists that envisioned every individual vs all forms of govt. Rather they were concerned with centralized federal authority dictating to local municipalities. The constitution references "the people" and not "all individuals" or "each peron" ; "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The people of a free state. The people of New York, Pennsylvania, the people of etc. That was written during a time states did not have full timed armed organizations like Police Departments, National Guards, State Police, and etc. Today the people In free states are armed to the teeth in a full time well regulated manner.

The people have the authority to takes any and all rights away from individuals. If you disagree explain how prisons and execution are constitutional.

[Willie71]

I think those of us who do not worship the supposed safety of guns need to get a copy of the dictionary the gun lovers use. They seem to have very unusual and highly selective definitions of words and phrases that the rest of us don't use. It makes communicating with them very difficult as they speak a different language to everyone else.

[waitforufo]

Whether or not I like it is irrelevant. The right of Americans to own firearms most certainly does impact people. As you'll recall, "Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% die)". That is 20 people per day who are impacted by your right to own firearms.

 

And as you are so fond of citing Heller, let's not forget this little nugget; “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

 

​If you wish to say "too bad, I like my guns and I'm going to keep them", that is fine. But don't pretend the Constitution gives you unfettered rights to keep and bear arms. It does not. You know it, we know it, and the Supreme Court certainly knows it.

Children regrettably die or are injured every day for various reasons, such as falls, poisonings, drownings, fire, etc.

 

I appreciate that that my second amendment rights are not unlimited. They are restricted to blades, clubs, and firearms.

 

The constitution references "the people" and not "all individuals" or "each peron" ; "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The people of a free state.

The constitution is consistent in its use of the term "the people" and "people". It always refers to individuals.

The people have the authority to takes any and all rights away from individuals. If you disagree explain how prisons and execution are constitutional.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to my references to "due process". Perhaps you should study the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

 

I think those of us who do not worship the supposed safety of guns need to get a copy of the dictionary the gun lovers use. They seem to have very unusual and highly selective definitions of words and phrases that the rest of us don't use. It makes communicating with them very difficult as they speak a different language to everyone else.

I believe it is liberals that are constantly rewriting the constitution by inventing new meanings for words and phrases. "Well regulated" and "militia" are good examples. It is liberals that despise the original meaning interpretation of the constitution in preference to the living document interpretation. Perhaps you should peak out of the small confines of your liberal isolation chamber. I know, it will be scary to see the real world, but have courage. I do encourage you however seek the dictionary you mention above. Webster's has a good copy.