Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.calling all gun trolls!

[farminator3000]

who want to argue with the ACTUAL WORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT!!!!

the trap is sprung, good luck. remember SCALIA wrote this, not me

"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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. 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. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). 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.26"

so what were you saying about your guns again?

[BainsBane]

1. Uh, oh.

[farminator3000]

2. might be a long wait

i think there might be some confusion as to how to approach this one.

plus i'm hitting the sack

[BainsBane]

3. Plus it's not in the gungeon

That's where you'd find most of them. But then the rest of us won't see it. I trashed that whole forum.

[farminator3000]

4. nice work

it is amazing how far some people will stick their feet in their mouths!

[BainsBane]

18. You've got me beat on that

and quite purposefully

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. How 'xactly are they supposed to handle this one?

Hot, hot, hot.

a talking point...with Scalia no less, on DC v Heller no less.

[farminator3000]

7. by starting to drool out of confusion?

by calling scalia names?

[Taitertots]

6. Your post is a straw man...

Almost no one believes the second amendment is unlimited.

[farminator3000]

9. you read the first line. good for you!

Almost no one believes the second amendment is unlimited.

4 million NRA members can't be wrong!

a short tale-
once there was a small group called the nra. they were good, and it grew. then in 1977, it became bad.

there were still many good people in it, most of them still are. but the leaders of this group were not good.
and that's a slight understatement.

the group kept growing, and had more and more money.
the bad men that led the group took lots of money from people who make guns, and used it to influence gun laws, to help their friends the gun makers make more guns. oh, and money.

then, yesterday, they showed us all how messed up they are.

the moral of this story is- $300 million dollars a year believes the 2nd amendment is unlimited.

and only $30 million believes it isn't.

kind of a sad story, no?

[Zoeisright]

10. I'm sure someone had to read it to him.

[Taitertots]

13. Oh, it looks like I've found a little fanboi

Do you think insulting people does anything other than show people that you have no interest in rational discourse and have nothing to support your opinions?

[Taitertots]

12. Your post is non-sense

Why don't you link to the NRA claiming the Second Amendment is an unlimited right or link to the NRA claiming any of the regulations discussed in the OP are unconstitutional?

The only think wrong with the NRA is their single issue support for Republican candidates. Being a single issue organization it is the only logical thing for them to do when Democratic candidates support increased gun control laws.

[farminator3000]

14. you are out of your element

is the nra paying you to post BS and waste people's time?

this horseshit is from their website- i'm not posting the link so you can practice looking things up. you type 'nra statements rights amendment' into google. count down to #6. you have 5 fingers if that helps.

try reading that maniac's speech from yesterday while you're there. there's also a video of an nra member cutting up his card. he looks like a nice man.

this BS below is so frigging insulting. if you are an nra member, you should tell them to remove it because it makes them look stupid



do you see how this question implies that gun control doesn't work? it's called a loaded question, and it sucks

9. Shouldn`t we at least try some gun control to see if it works?

We have. Over the past century, all types of gun control laws have been implemented in different parts of the United States. Everything from purchase restrictions to complete gun bans has been tried. These laws have not worked, and in some cases have had the opposite effect from what was intended.

Some big cities have strict gun laws. New York City has very strict gun laws, more strict than the rest of the state of New York. In spite of this, New York has always had significantly higher violent crime rates. Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Ill. have banned the ownership of handguns, and both these cities have much higher violent crime rates than the surrounding areas.

States such as Illinois and New York have gun owner licensing. Other states, such as Hawaii, have gun registration. However, none of these laws led to reductions in violent crime rates. And that is the real test of gun control laws. Do crime rates fall after gun laws are passed? The clear answer is no. Gun control has been tested, and it has failed the test.

[Taitertots]

15. Ok, you can't post a link to the NRA claiming the Second Amendment is an unlimited right

And you can't post a link to the NRA claiming that any of the topics Scalia was talking about are unconstitutional.

Almost no one (NRA included) is claiming any of the things in the OP are unconstitutional due to the second amendment. If you want to discuss the efficiency of gun control, why don't you start a thread discussing it and PM me to discuss it with you.

[farminator3000]

16. i told you exactly where the link is are you lazy?

this horseshit is from their website- i'm not posting the link so you can practice looking things up. you type 'nra statements rights amendment' into google. count down to #6.

i am posting a link, using words. i meant the 6th website down on google

it is called nraila dot org. that is the website where the link is. make sure to put in a period where it says dot there.

it is the nra's lobbying part, the one that bribes all the politicians to vote for horrible things, which is particularly disgusting because the nra is a non-profit, and gets a shitload of money from gun companies.

after you type in the words to google, hit enter, click on the link, and, stay with me, go to the blue words that say "read more"
don't be alarmed by those words. go waaay down to #9 and there you will see what i posted

i'm sorry if you are an nra member and are embarassed by this. you could always cut up your card.

you can also defend yourself with those scissors fairly well, if you're ok with scissors

[Taitertots]

20. It is perfectly clear that you can't produce a link that disputes anything that I've claimed

The NRA isn't claiming that the second amendment is an unlimited right. The NRA isn't claiming that the issues in the OP are unconstitutional.

Post a link that disputes my claims. All you have done is type a bunch on unrelated BS to distract from the fact that I'm right.

[farminator3000]

21. do you know how to use google?

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)

any normal person can see that i told you exactly where it is.

The NRA isn't claiming that the issues in the OP are unconstitutional.


there is only one issue.

Post a link that disputes my claims. All you have done is type a bunch on unrelated BS to distract from the fact that I'm right.

if you need a link to make a claim, how can you have claim when you haven't posted a link!
whoa, that's a good one!

who is typing BS? who is right?

[Taitertots]

22. Why are you so afraid to actually post a link to what you claim?

I know how to use google and nothing that comes up on google contradicts anything that I have claimed.

It is obvious that you are not interested in an actual discussion about the topic. Keep typing but I'm not going to respond until you actually address the issue.

[farminator3000]

23. so your google is broken or not functioning correctly

that's understandable. my computer threw up a little bit in its mouth when i did this:

it is called nraila dot org. that is the website where the link is. make sure to put in a period where it says dot there.

it is the nra's lobbying part, the one that bribes all the politicians to vote for horrible things, which is particularly disgusting because the nra is a non-profit, and gets a shitload of money from gun companies.

after you type in the words to google, hit enter, click on the link, and, stay with me, go to the blue words that say "read more"
don't be alarmed by those words. go waaay down to #9 and there you will see what i posted

it isn't pretty, i don't blame you for not wanting to look.

[farminator3000]

11. should i post ya a pic of a straw man

there are plenty on the internets

[etherealtruth]

8. Chum in the water

[Logical]

17. LOL, what new information is this? It means you can regulate guns. As most states do. Who...

Who is claiming you cannot regulate guns?

But many here are saying ban all guns. Lets see if you agree with SCOTUS on that topic. Read more and get back to me.

[farminator3000]

19. um

Who is claiming you cannot regulate guns?

just the $300 million gun lobby.

and many people on this board.

what are you doing?

[farminator3000]

25. so what does that mean for the states who regulate guns?

they are in danger of being attacked by the other states with more guns?

i went and read some more, like you said. all the way to the END of the post, where it says:

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.

these things in italics (the slanty letters) are the things that people want to ban, because they are very bad.
the part after the italics kinda means laws SHOULD be made, to stop the things in the italics from happening.

if you are asking me if i agree with the supreme court, i will say yes, just to make you happy, but i doubt scalia is really too interested in my opinion, and i don't really have a choice. SUPREME means it is the highest authority.

check it out- the citizens can have ideas about things, and tell their representatives, who then make laws, and if there are issues with the laws, your buddy scotus has the final say

[aikoaiko]

24. Most of the long term pro-gun DU members would agree with that.

Almost everyone agrees that there can be regulations and restrictions on the RKBA, but the issue is where to draw the line.

[farminator3000]

26. 12

i like the idea of a 12 bullet limit.
a six shooter in each hand-
with something like a smartphone, keeping up with the latest technology is good, not so much with guns

i think the line should be drawn at the point where personal freedom becomes a danger to society, where one type of person's 'privilege' interferes with the freedom of those who don't ask for that same thing.

kind of like drunk driving in that respect.


ie- it was just a bit frivolous of mrs. lanza to have a gun like that for target practice- at least she could have been forced to keep it at the range- if you have two handguns in your house for defense, the rifle is obviously extraneous

and, if she was having trouble getting the kid help, maybe he had a little too much freedom as well

[aikoaiko]

27. 12 is not a bad number.

My carry revolver is 5 shot (locked when not in use).
My locked car pistol is a 15 shot
My locked bedroom pistol is a 19 shot.

I would like to see safe storage laws.

[farminator3000]

28. i like it

so you'd be cool with trading in those clips for ones that hold 12?

the hard part is banning psycho rifles while letting normal people keep their guns

[Recursion]

30. What's a psycho rifle? (nt)

[Recursion]

29. I don't remember anybody saying it's unlimited

For that matter even the NRA isn't trying to repeal, say, the National Firearms Act