NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

Hmm, Im confused, you disagreed with me weeks ago over this, now your all for it? I wanted project exile stiffen up and possible life without parole?

Jiro said:
that's why NRA is pushing for Project Exile and it has my full support.

FYI - Project Exile is imposing a harsher and longer penalty without possibility of parole or probation for felons caught with guns.

as for gun show... thank you for proving my point that the fear about handful of criminals getting guns from gun shows is unfound and irrational. this doesn't warrant any further legislative action. I see that the biggest culprit is family/friend as well as illegal street buy but how come?

a simple explanation - poor safekeeping. I have absolutely no problem with a new law mandating a gun safe for every household with guns. It's already a law in just about all states that gun owner will be held criminally responsible if a minor had an access to firearm. now... a gun should be only accessible to its gun owner and nobody else especially in urban area.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Hmm, Im confused, you disagreed with me weeks ago over this, now your all for it? I wanted project exile stiffen up and possible life without parole?
Click to expand...

I don't recall that...
 
diehardbiker said:
I will bet my ass that Obama's executive order WILL backfire with Supreme court.
Click to expand...

Don't too rush, man and if he mentions about constitution allows to use executive order so it will be no issue, but the executive order is pretty limited.

Second Amendment doesn't give you EVERYTHING about what you want and some gun regulations like background check is reasonable.
 
Care explain the meaning of last sentence, in red?



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.

History behind this is that back then when US is under Britain control, there have been invasion from red coats on these colony, these red coat abuse their power when it comes to firearms. Red Coat's true intention was to prevent them from fighting back. George Washington and his friends agreed during drafting of Amendment, add that last sentence to make sure government don't take control in future. And they knew that in order to have safe state is to allow everyone rights to bear firearms.

Obama's decision to send executive order on firearm is a violation of 2nd Amendment.

Foxrac said:
Don't too rush, man and if he mentions about constitution allows to use executive order so it will be no issue, but the executive order is pretty limited.

Second Amendment doesn't give you EVERYTHING about what you want and some gun regulations like background check is reasonable.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Care explain the meaning of last sentence, in red

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.
Click to expand...

The constitution questions are too broad to answer.

The firearm can be regulated, long as it wasn't infringed.

The complete gun ban like DC and Chicago - already infringed.

The background check - not infringed.

Second Amendment doesn't give you a completely freedom with firearm and we have law that make illegal for felons to be armed.
 
No no you got it wrong, a well regulated Militia means anyone can establish a militia, what that means is that supposed you and I were together alone, and we CAN and allowed by second amendment that we establish our own militia, having uncle sam infringe our right is a violation of 2nd amendment.

Have your English teacher explain this to you. You got it wrong.

Foxrac said:
The constitution questions are too broad to answer.

The firearm can be regulated, long as it wasn't infringed.

The complete gun ban like DC and Chicago - already infringed.

The background check - not infringed.

Second Amendment doesn't give you a completely freedom with firearm and we have law that make illegal for felons to be armed.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
No no you got it wrong, a well regulated Militia means anyone can establish a militia, what that means is that supposed you and I were together alone, and we CAN and allowed by second amendment that we establish our own militia, having uncle sam infringe our right is a violation of 2nd amendment.

Have your English teacher explain this to you. You got it wrong.
Click to expand...

You make no sense and you asked me to explain in red fonts.

I'm confident that my answer is correct about the constitution is too broad to answer, so that why we have US Supreme Court to interpreting as constitutional or unconstitutional.

Based on your logic - it means background check will be unconstitutional and make illegal for felons to armed, will be unconstitutional too. That's not make any sense because federal and states regulate the firearm laws.

The regulate on firearm laws don't mean complete ban on guns - 2 cases (DC/Chicago) so it is unconstitutional.
 
diehardbiker said:
No no you got it wrong, a well regulated Militia means anyone can establish a militia, what that means is that supposed you and I were together alone, and we CAN and allowed by second amendment that we establish our own militia, having uncle sam infringe our right is a violation of 2nd amendment.

Have your English teacher explain this to you. You got it wrong.
Click to expand...

the dissenting argument was that a well-regulated militia in this modern time is the National Guards so....
 
Suggest ask somebody that reads English well and explain to you in ASL.

You can not use word from sentence onto other sentence. And "Regulated Militant" means a group of militant that set up their own rules and system by themselves, second sentence tells government that they can not tell regulated militia what to do with them. That word "regulated" is referred to Militant itself.

Foxrac said:
You make no sense and you asked me to explain in red fonts.

I'm confident that my answer is correct about the constitution is too broad to answer, so that why we have US Supreme Court to interpreting as constitutional or unconstitutional.

Based on your logic - it means background check will be unconstitutional and make illegal for felons to armed, will be unconstitutional too. That's not make any sense because federal and states regulate the firearm laws.

The regulate on firearm laws don't mean complete ban on guns - 2 cases (DC/Chicago) so it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
You may not aware of this, but there are hundreds or maybe thousands of private Militia all over the United States, not just National Guards.

Jiro said:
the dissenting argument was that a well-regulated militia in this modern time is the National Guards so....
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Suggest ask somebody that reads English well and explain to you in ASL.

You can not use word from sentence onto other sentence. And "Regulated Militant" means a group of militant that set up their own rules and system by themselves, second sentence tells government that they can not tell regulated militia what to do with them. That word "regulated" is referred to Militant itself.
Click to expand...

Do you think that I can't read english? If I can't read english so I wouldn't be university student and I made A on constitution exam in the history course (college level). I think that your sentence seems don't make any sense.

Hello Jiro, please care to explain about Second Amendment and what is any connection to regulate the firearm. I saw your point about National Guard.
 
It is common for Deafies not read it correct and think they are right. I understand why your confused.

Foxrac said:
Do you think that I can't read english? If I can't read english so I wouldn't be university student and I made A on constitution exam in the history course (college level). I think that your sentence seems don't make any sense.

Hello Jiro, please care to explain about Second Amendment and what is any connection to regulate the firearm. I saw your point about National Guard.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
You may not aware of this, but there are hundreds or maybe thousands of private Militia all over the United States, not just National Guards.
Click to expand...

perhaps you may not be aware of this... but a lot of them is considered as domestic terrorists. Tim McVeigh was one of them.

any militia with anti-government agenda is not a militia. they're terrorists.
 
Read the link, of course there some bad ones. Just like everything else. There are more good militants out then bad ones.

Jiro said:
perhaps you may not be aware of this... but a lot of them is considered as domestic terrorists. Tim McVeigh was one of them.

any militia with anti-government agenda is not a militia. they're terrorists.
Click to expand...
 
Hence "Private" that is why you don't see em but they are out there.

The best thing about being private is that world will never know and if they ever attack us, man! all of these element of surprises awaiting for them. That is one of reason why no other countries have the balls to attack us.

Foxrac said:
The private militias are extremely rare in Alabama and I never seen them in my life, same with CA, IL, VA, GA, FL, NC, southern Louisiana, etc.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Read the link, of course there some bad ones. Just like everything else. There are more good militants out then bad ones.
Click to expand...

the good militants you are speaking of are in National Guards.
 
Back
Top