In response to:

Why the 2nd Amendment

Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 12:30 PM
The Clinton Justice Dept. funded a study conducted by a liberal think tank to determine the number of times a gun was used in a justifiable self defense action. That doesn't mean the perpetrator was killed, shot, or even shot at. The number they arrived at was an estimate of somewhere between 850K and 1.5 million times every year in the USA. The study was immediately spiked. Gee, I wonder why. In all things we do, we need to weigh the risks against the benefits. Liberals like Dan_AZ, when it comes to gun rights, only want us to focus on the risks and completely ignore the benefits. Bad idea!
Dan_AZ Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 12:40 PM
I'm not a liberal and I don't care about gun rights. Sen. Feinstein seems to care though since she's pushing this stupid ban this&that. I was only coming up with an idea, but everyone seems to prefer stoning instead of trying a meaningful dialog.
I'm not for NRA's solution either. Having nationwide conceal-carry/open-carry is NOT ok.
Whatever. You guys keep all your guns, Happy New Year to everyone!
LtScrounge Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 12:47 PM
How about using the option that has proven effective at stopping mass shootings at schools in Israel for over 38 years? They had a problem with terrorists attacking the schools until they trained and armed those teachers who wanted to be armed. It only took a couple of attacks to get point across to the terrorists that attacking schools wasn't worth the risk.

For anyone against that idea, here's a question. If someone was coming at you with a knife would you rather have an IPhone 5 or a 45 in your hand?
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 12:48 PM
you're a liberal nazi snot.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 12:50 PM
If you don't care about gun rights then that would seem to imply that you don't support gun rights. Is that a correct assumption? You came up with an idea, and most of us gun rights supporters told you that we think the idea is not only dumb, but unconstitutional as well. I don't recall throwing any stones at you. I've been trying to have a meaningful dialogue. You seem to get overly defensive when you're points don't seem to be able to sway others into accepting your idea as noteworthy. Hey, that's the way it goes on these threads. You seem to have gotten no support from any liberals for your idea. I can't help you with that. Happy New Year to you. Thanks for the permission to keep all of my guns. I appreciate it.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 1:00 PM
the arrogance of these people is amazing.
Truckman Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 8:28 PM
Dan,I don't want to try to change your mind about the absolute lunacy of Gun Control,but I personally believe EVERYONE should utilize their Second Amendment and own as many guns as they want,always carry,and if you're so seriously against that Right,We'll promise to let you fend for yourself with whatever means you can find when you get mugged,robbed or raped and killed by a Criminal with a black market gun.Please fight fair and let the criminal fire the first shot (proves it was self-defense) before you hit him with---,--? a rock? Anyway,if you don't kill him,which you won't,your survivors can file a Civil suit against him,and maybe recover enough to pay for your funeral. BUT,hey-stand by your beliefs,by all means. I'm dead sure I WILL.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 12:37 PM
these are interesting points but remain secondary to the fact that keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutional right which cannot be infringed; and the Constitution is the reigning law of the land.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 12:44 PM
With that I agree, 100% BDOTC11. Thumbs up!
John1672 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 2:45 PM
It's Constitutional right SHALL not be infinged ! maybe one of our lawer friends can explan what that word " SHALL" means { very inportant word in legal terms} .
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 3:55 PM
"Shall not" is pretty clear. Maybe even to you, lawyer boy.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 2:06 PM
Yeah John, my legal training actually reveals a few things.

The word "shall" contained in the 2nd Amendment is used in conjunction with "not" as an absolute prohibition. So the phrase indicates that there is an ironclad relationship between the "rights" referenced earlier and the action of infringing upon them.

But here's where the legal analysis starts to take off a little... The First Amendment contains similarly absolute language, but that doesn't mean we can't implicitly condition the concepts a little. So, for example, while the 1st Am similarly prohibits the government from impinging on an individual's freedom of speech, we wouldn't say that any restriction on speech at all rises to the level of "infringing" upon that right.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 2:10 PM
We often allow the government to make rules regulating speech without considering it violative of the first amendment, meaning, we don't consider those restrictions an "infringement" on the right.

So, to apply that to the Second Amendment, it matters less what "shall not" means, and more how we want to interpret the infringement of the right to bear arms. I mean, the government can restrict you from owning a tank, and most would agree that they haven't violated your 2nd Am rights.

The absolute nature of the word "shall" does nothing to exclude implicit preconditions that are often already a part of the concepts used.
spartacus3344 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 12:36 PM
Exactly right Lars. The numbers don't lie. The truth is the truth. But it doesn't fit the progressive narrative. It destroys their whole gun-grabbing agenda. So it gets memory-holed.

It's criminal.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is...