Getting Serious about Curbing Gun Violence

[Cubs79]

Your articles actually do prove me right. Why was the Miller ruling overturned? It was a terrible ruling based on nothing but personal politics, but it got the ball rolling for gun control and it's the perfect example of why case law should be disregarded by SCOTUS.

I can't have a sawed off shotgun because there is no use for it that is legal. That's what the court said in their ruling. Well, is it illegal to shoot the ground? Is it illegal to use it as a cane? Is it illegal to use it as a decoration in my house? No to all of the above and thousands of other reasons. Is it illegal to use it to murder someone? Yep, but that law exists for any form of murder. Fortunately the later court went by the Constitution and overturned it because it was a stupid ruling with no constitutional basis.

Ah, so is the ruling we have now the final ruling then I take it? It will never be brought up again in the history of our country? But yes, they proved you right as you are the clear authority on this issue, as you have more than made clear.

 

[Cubs79]

You were stating that a militia must feature F16's, Abrams, Bradleys, and basically mimic what the standing army has. It doesn't. That was my point.

Huh? I most certainly did not state they "must" contain anything. I was asking a hypothetical scenario if someone started a militia that did contain those things, if that would that be constitutional, or more so if it would be unconstitutional to regulate them.

 

[Crazyhole]

Ah, so is the ruling we have now the final ruling then I take it? It will never be brought up again in the history of our country? But yes, they proved you right as you are the clear authority on this issue, as you have more than made clear.

It isn't hard to be an authority when the language says "shall not be infringed". I'm not dense enough to have to ask myself what that means, or how much can we infringe on it. It means "not at all, full stop, end of story".

We can argue the merits of that statement, but the meaning really isn't up for debate.

 

[Cubs79]

It isn't hard to be an authority when the language says "shall not be infringed". I'm not dense enough to have to ask myself what that means, or how much can we infringe on it. It means "not at all, full stop, end of story".

We can argue the merits of that statement, but the meaning really isn't up for debate.

It is also easy to be an authority when you only focus on 4 words of the amendment.

 

[Crazyhole]

It is also easy to be an authority when you only focus on 3 words of the amendment.

Well golly, maybe we should dig deeper and try to figure out if they actually meant "bare" instead of "bear". Or maybe they meant people could kill a bear and keep it's arms. That's pretty much how silly this is.

The people can form militias because it's necessary for the safety of the country. We can also own guns and weapons and the government can't stop us. This isnt rocket science, and every piece of evidence that we can accumulate from writings of the guys that actually signed on to this substantiate it.

Pretty simple, find any writing from one of the founding fathers that bring any of this into question and we can have a debate on what they meant. Until then, we can debate the merits of it all you want but the intent is clear.

 

[Cubs79]

Well golly, maybe we should dig deeper and try to figure out if they actually meant "bare" instead of "bear". Or maybe they meant people could kill a bear and keep it's arms. That's pretty much how silly this is.

The people can form militias because it's necessary for the safety of the country. We can also own guns and weapons and the government can't stop us. This isnt rocket science, and every piece of evidence that we can accumulate from writings of the guys that actually signed on to this substantiate it.

Pretty simple, find any writing from one of the founding fathers that bring any of this into question and we can have a debate on what they meant. Until then, we can debate the merits of it all you want but the intent is clear.

Right, it's silly to actually look at the whole amendment, what was I thinking?

 

[UCFWayne]

Well golly, maybe we should dig deeper and try to figure out if they actually meant "bare" instead of "bear". Or maybe they meant people could kill a bear and keep it's arms. That's pretty much how silly this is.

The people can form militias because it's necessary for the safety of the country. We can also own guns and weapons and the government can't stop us. This isnt rocket science, and every piece of evidence that we can accumulate from writings of the guys that actually signed on to this substantiate it.

Pretty simple, find any writing from one of the founding fathers that bring any of this into question and we can have a debate on what they meant. Until then, we can debate the merits of it all you want but the intent is clear.

forget about what the founding fathers actually meant when they wrote it. we definitely should not look at what madison wrote about it in several of his letters. lets take the word of some dude that doesnt even understand the actual definition of the words used in that exact amendment. lol dude is joke.

 

[Cubs79]

forget about what the founding fathers actually meant when they wrote it. we definitely should not look at what madison wrote about it in several of his letters. lets take the word of some dude that doesnt even understand the actual definition of the words used in that exact amendment. lol dude is joke.

Jefferson didn't allow guns on the UVA campus, so he wasn't a gun absolutist who thought guns should be carried everywhere.

Even Scalia thought the 2nd had limits.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

There is lots of evidence and interpretations that the 2nd was written more about militias and the fed vs states government control of them than individual rights.

And the phrasing of "right to bare arms" historically was more commonly used in regards to military service. You can certainly disagree, but you guys acting like there is no debate and the 2nd is written plain as day, is just wrong.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about 1330.

Garry Wills, author and history professor at Northwestern University, has written of the origin of the term bear arms:

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms."..."One does not bear arms against a rabbit ...".[24]


You guys can keep acting like I am dumb and the 2nd is written clear and concise, but a lot of intelligent people would disagree with you.

 

[UCFWayne]

Jefferson didn't allow guns on the UVA campus, so he wasn't a gun absolutist who thought guns should be carried everywhere.

Even Scalia thought the 2nd had limits.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

There is lots of evidence and interpretations that the 2nd was written more about militias and the fed vs states government control of them than individual rights.

And the phrasing of "right to bare arms" historically was more commonly used in regards to military service. You can certainly disagree, but you guys acting like there is no debate and the 2nd is written plain as day, is just wrong.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about 1330.

Garry Wills, author and history professor at Northwestern University, has written of the origin of the term bear arms:

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms."..."One does not bear arms against a rabbit ...".[24]


You guys can keep acting like I am dumb and the 2nd is written clear and concise, but a lot of intelligent people would disagree with you.

i notice you didnt quote the guy that actually wrote the second amendment. care to share his thoughts on it with the rest of class?

 

[Cubs79]

i notice you didnt quote the guy that actually wrote the second amendment. care to share his thoughts on it with the rest of class?

It's not a class, it is a conversation that you are welcome to actually contribute to if you would like. If you have a quote you want to provide, then provide it.

 

[UCFWayne]

It's not a class, it is a conversation that you are welcome to actually contribute to if you would like. If you have a quote you want to provide, then provide it.

you still dont even understand what a militia is. then you quote various people on the idea of the second, and yet you dont include the guy that wrote it. i wonder why you would leave out the foremost authority on the 2nd amendment? do you even know who wrote it? i mean ive seen you use google on here before, why stop now?

 

[Cubs79]

you still dont even understand what a militia is. then you quote various people on the idea of the second, and yet you dont include the guy that wrote it. i wonder why you would leave out the foremost authority on the 2nd amendment? do you even know who wrote it? i mean ive seen you use google on here before, why stop now?

Dude, I don't care about your insults, I get it, you think I'm stupid. I am perfectly fine with that. Do you have anything to contribute or not? You aren't very good at this whole conversation thing are you?

Madison is not the foremost authority of the 2nd amendment. The Bill of Rights was signed by and compromised by various people, and the version of the 2nd we got was written by Madison, but was worked out by more than just him.

 

[beelit47]

Seems odd that dems call for gun control but then are ok with a movie whose plot is rich elites “hunting” deplorables. Chemmie and fried will probably buy a ticket to this film and rub one out together

 

[UCFKnight85]

Seems odd that dems call for gun control but then are ok with a movie whose plot is rich elites “hunting” deplorables. Chemmie and fried will probably buy a ticket to this film and rub one out together

I had to check to see if that trailer was fake news or a parody or something but no, Hollywood honestly created a movie about rich liberals killing Trump supporters for fun

What.The.Fuk

 

[UCFWayne]

itt i learned if you write something, say a book or even a law, there are people out there that will claim you arent the foremost authority on that matter. shakespeare clearly didnt know more about his plays than some lit scholar in portland. i clearly know more about star wars than george lucas. lloloooloololoolooololol

 

[Crazyhole]

On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

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

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

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


I wonder what those guys intent was.

 

[UCFWayne]

On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

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

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

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


I wonder what those guys intent was.

cubs apparently thinks other people, some a hundred years removed, who had nothing to do with the drafting and signing of the 2nd amendment have more authority on it than its creators. i honestly hope he didnt get a degree from UCF because that cheapens the one hanging in my office.

 

[Crazyhole]

cubs apparently thinks other people, some a hundred years removed, who had nothing to do with the drafting and signing of the 2nd amendment have more authority on it than its creators. i honestly hope he didnt get a degree from UCF because that cheapens the one hanging in my office.

The Madison quote is interesting to me. It was written 3 months before the bill of rights was drafted, but more accurately communicates the point. I wonder what led them to switching up the order.

 

[Crazyhole]

Jefferson didn't allow guns on the UVA campus, so he wasn't a gun absolutist who thought guns should be carried everywhere.

Even Scalia thought the 2nd had limits.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

There is lots of evidence and interpretations that the 2nd was written more about militias and the fed vs states government control of them than individual rights.

And the phrasing of "right to bare arms" historically was more commonly used in regards to military service. You can certainly disagree, but you guys acting like there is no debate and the 2nd is written plain as day, is just wrong.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about 1330.

Garry Wills, author and history professor at Northwestern University, has written of the origin of the term bear arms:

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms."..."One does not bear arms against a rabbit ...".[24]


You guys can keep acting like I am dumb and the 2nd is written clear and concise, but a lot of intelligent people would disagree with you.

Historically, the debate has been more around the topic of what a person can do with arms, not whether they have the right to possess them. I would argue that I have the right to own a bazooka, but the government can create laws that tell me what I can't do with it.

 

[UCFWayne]

The Madison quote is interesting to me. It was written 3 months before the bill of rights was drafted, but more accurately communicates the point. I wonder what led them to switching up the order.

i think the idea was that even if you werent trained previously with firearms, you could get training after the fact. that would clear the barrier of training before obtaining a gun. either way, madison was also cool with people owning their own artillery as stated in one of his presidential letters.

 

[Crazyhole]

i think the idea was that even if you werent trained previously with firearms, you could get training after the fact. that would clear the barrier of training before obtaining a gun. either way, madison was also cool with people owning their own artillery as stated in one of his presidential letters.

Are you saying that they flipped it to put more emphasis on militia being a necessity? I could actually really see that being the case, considering the spirit of the BOR: putting limitations on the government, and this would be an enforcement mechanism.

 

[beelit47]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/philadelphia-police-shooting-suspect-has-extensive-criminal-history

So which gun law could have prevented this guy from getting guns?

 

[UCFWayne]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/philadelphia-police-shooting-suspect-has-extensive-criminal-history

So which gun law could have prevented this guy from getting guns?

why havent the usual suspects chimed in? i wonder why.....

 

[Ucfmikes]

Looks like this guy had a gun and not a knife.
Shocking.

Which gun laws? Howabout one that doesn’t let criminals own one to kill cops with

So far, nobody has any answers, but as we continue to debate this, crazy, violent, people with guns are killing people

 

[sk8knight]

Looks like this guy had a gun and not a knife.
Shocking.

Which gun laws? Howabout one that doesn’t let criminals own one to kill cops with

So far, nobody has any answers, but as we continue to debate this, crazy, violent, people with guns are killing people

Why hasn’t anyone ever thought of that and made a law like that in every jurisdiction?

 

[UCFWayne]

where are all the people that are trying to push gun control? i thought they really cared?*

 

[NinjaKnight]

Just a friendly reminder that the NRA was a foreign asset to Russia during the 2016 election and we have done absolutely nothing other than sending less than useless "thoughts and prayers" to stop the next Right-wing or ISIS led mass shooter.

 

[HesJustAFriendISwear]

View embedded media

Just a friendly reminder that the NRA was a foreign asset to Russia during the 2016 election and we have done absolutely nothing other than sending less than useless "thoughts and prayers" to stop the next Right-wing or ISIS led mass shooter.

dumb bitch

 

[fried-chicken]

dumb bitch

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...gn-asset-for-russia-before-2016-election/amp/

Mad.

 

[DaShuckster]

Just a friendly reminder that the NRA was a foreign asset to Russia during the 2016 election

I often imagine how President Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave if he could see how the Republican Party and his proud Conservative Movement have been duped into becoming Russian excusers and patsies.

Evil Empire? Naaaaw, they're our bosom buddies now, right guys???

 

[HesJustAFriendISwear]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...gn-asset-for-russia-before-2016-election/amp/

Mad.

Projecting.

 

[UCFWayne]

the nra has lots of internal problems right now. they have a corrupt leadership group that needs to be cleaned out.