The Democrats are condemning Donald Trump and...

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That's their tactic; to distort and deflect.

You think it's that intentional? I think when someone says something that demonstrates they're wrong, they just go off onto the next tangential thing their strawman version of you would say, and attack that, never mind whether you actually said anything remotely like it, or even think it. It's pretty standard for the Usual Suspects, anything to avoid admitting a mistake or ignorance.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It will be argued about for as long as we have the Constitution.

Nah, I think we'll get there eventually. We just need to timetable the discussion properly. Here's my proposal:

We've neatly established what "right" and "people" and "bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" means,
Now, we need to figure out what "militia" means,
Then, we need to discuss what "well-regulated" means,
After that, we can work on "free State" and "necessary",
We might have time to discuss "protection" after that,
Then we should round the whole thing out with a debate about "a", "being", "to", "of" and "the".
I'll pencil us in for talks until the new millennia, then review where we are then.

 

[Audie]

What part of "well-regulated" don't you understand?

Ah, a constitutional scholar.

 

[tytlyf]

Ah, a constitutional scholar.

One doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to know what the 2A says.

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.

 

[Stanyon]

As did quite a few Republicans as I recall. Lindsey Graham said Trump was a “race-baiting xenophobic religious bigot”, and Paul Ryan described Trumps comments about a judge as “textbook racism”. And there were many others but my memory is getting old.

From my memory Lindsey Graham and Paul Ryan have both indicated they might run in 2020 so no big surprise there that two potential challengers to Trump would jump on the smear bandwagon, it might improve their chances if they decide to run. As far as the democrats go they seem to be running scared as they know more and more African Americans and Latinos are leaning towards republicans despite their best efforts to claim republicans are just racists without the sheet.

 

[Stanyon]

One doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to know what the 2A says.

The SCOTUS determined that the 2A 's intent was for private ownership of firearms in 2008 I believe but keep going with your word play, maybe you could write a letter to them and explain where they were wrong?

"On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense."

Source:
Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

Maybe you're just a little tipsy and chatty

 

[Shad]

But it's the conservatives that have distorted the 2nd Amendment. It very clearly says that the right to bear arms is to ensure an effective militia. And I am fully supportive of having those in a registered militia allowed to be allowed to have such arms. Since that would probably require background checks, and mental health evaluations, I see nothing wrong with such.

Background checks already exist. Mental health is part of a soft science

On the other hand, if you are NOT in a militia, there should be restrictions on what weapons of mass destruction you can own.

Membership is not required in 2a. Weapons are a prerequisite not membership. Read the work by the Founding Fathers on 2a. Read authorization of cannon on merchant ships in the Revolution, War of 1812 and Barbary Wars as part of 2a. Read the sound ordinances regarding cannons.

 

[Stevicus]

the Republicans in general as "racists".

I see it on CNN and I see it on MSNBC.

The Demos are hypocrites: they accuse the Trump camp for being "racists" thus "un-American"

The Democrats are the leading force behind violating the Second Amendment: taking gun rights away: now how AMERICAN is that?

Remember Michael Douglas in some 1990's movies? He is purely anti-gun in real life. He was in favor of "assault weapons" bans in the film "The American President". The film would be better titled "The Communist President". In "Falling Down" he told the bald man running the army-navy store that he was "an American" and that the army-navy store man was something not very nice, like a twisted kook or something. The army-navy man was showing the nerdy fellow canisters that used to contain gas to kill people in Nazi Germany and Mr. Nerd didn't like that one bit. His nerdy character also packed a lot of guns to shoot people and plan to kill some people, some innocents, in that film.

As an AMERICAN, one has the 1st A right to say "I don't like foreigners to come here" or "I hate Jews" or "I hate sand [you-know-whats]".

Michael Douglas is a versatile actor. He also played Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. His line of "greed is good" was often misattributed to Trump back in those years. But it's largely because the Democrats chose to embrace that same philosophy in their boy Clinton that I can't take their condemnations of Trump all that seriously nowadays.

As for condemnations of racism, that's probably a bit more complicated - although one can detect a fair amount of hypocrisy and BS coming from both sides whenever this issue is brought up. If ever there comes a time when we can discuss this issue openly and honestly in the American political culture, it would become a banner day in this country.

Of course, as Americans, you're right that we have the right to hate whoever we want, but I'm not sure where all this hatred is going to get us. Hatred begets hatred. It can only make things worse.

We're still dealing with centuries of hatred, atrocity, war, genocide - all of which are part of the historical record which feeds the hatred we have already.

It seems that a lot of people are hateful, angry, and on edge - ready to shoot up a McDonald's if their french fries are cold.

In Falling Down, there was a scene at a fast-food restaurant, where D-FENS takes a stand against poor customer service.

This is actually one of my favorite scenes in the movie, with Michelle Pfeiffer's sister behind the counter.

D-FENS does make an interesting point at the end, though, regarding the difference between imagery presented to people versus the reality. In the picture, they show a plump juicy burger, while the reality is that they give him this "miserable squashed thing."

That's also how I view politics, where we see the public face of a smiling politician, but the reality is that we all end up with a "miserable squashed thing."

 

[Shad]

Nah, I think we'll get there eventually. We just need to timetable the discussion properly. Here's my proposal:

We've neatly established what "right" and "people" and "bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" means,
Now, we need to figure out what "militia" means,
Then, we need to discuss what "well-regulated" means,
After that, we can work on "free State" and "necessary",
We might have time to discuss "protection" after that,
Then we should round the whole thing out with a debate about "a", "being", "to", "of" and "the".
I'll pencil us in for talks until the new millennia, then review where we are then.

All done by the Founding Fathers.

 

[Stanyon]

The problem with the gun debate in the U.S. is the people tend to look at it in absolute terms, and that just makes no sense.

Gun owners have to look at it in absolute terms especially considering that more than a few politicians that claim they support "common sense" gun control applaud and support confiscation at the end of the day. The anti-gunners know that an outright confiscation would not work nor do they have any illusions that any of their measures that criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens will stop crime, it is step by step to normalize further and further restrictions as there will always be a reason to take it a step further.
Is it easier to cut down a 30' tree or keep trimming it back in it's infancy so it doesn't get to big to manage?

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s
“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”
Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
President Barack Obama

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein

“We cannot let a minority of people—and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”
Hillary Clinton
“When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.”
Bill Clinton
“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”
President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

Gun Control Quotes: Quotes from Politicians About Gun Confiscation​

 

[SkepticThinker]

From my memory Lindsey Graham and Paul Ryan have both indicated they might run in 2020 so no big surprise there that two potential challengers to Trump would jump on the smear bandwagon, it might improve their chances if they decide to run. As far as the democrats go they seem to be running scared as they know more and more African Americans and Latinos are leaning towards republicans despite their best efforts to claim republicans are just racists without the sheet.

Or maybe if people from all political persuasions are calling you a racist, you just might be a racist.

Not sure if you've noticed, but Lindsey Graham has since decided that it's more politically expedient to kiss the President's behind than it is to point out his racism or criticize him in any way. That's the way the political winds are blowing for Republicans right now. They desperately want that 36-40% Trump base on their side, so they'll keep their mouths shut about Trump's racism now.
Now that Paul Ryan is out of office, he has changed his tune from backing Trump no matter what, to criticizing him again.

 

[Curious George]

So what, exactly, does the phrase 'a well-regulated militia' actually mean? It certainly does NOT mean 'all citizens' because that group of people is clearly NOT 'well-regulated'. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is *based* on the people being part of said 'well-regulated militia'. Unless you are in such a militia, you don't have that right according to the Constitution.

No the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in part because of the necessity for a well regulated militia. If membership in that well regulated militia was required then women, elderly and individuals with disabilities would not have the right to keep and bear arms.

If the writers meant what you seem to unnecessarily read then they would have written something different.

 

[Curious George]

if the militia was all able-bodied adults, then why the phrase 'well-regulated'?

Also, in the past, each person brought their own arms when called up for militia duty. That is certainly NOT the case now, nor has it been for quite some time.

Are we moving through all of the words?

Well-regulated would likely mean armed and capable of using firearms. One cannot really have a well regulated militia (citizenry) without arms or the ability to use them.

 

[Curious George]

Gun owners have to look at it in absolute terms especially considering that more than a few politicians that claim they support "common sense" gun control applaud and support confiscation at the end of the day. The anti-gunners know that an outright confiscation would not work nor do they have any illusions that any of their measures that criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens will stop crime, it is step by step to normalize further and further restrictions as there will always be a reason to take it a step further.
Is it easier to cut down a 30' tree or keep trimming it back in it's infancy so it doesn't get to big to manage?

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s
“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”
Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
President Barack Obama

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein

“We cannot let a minority of people—and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”
Hillary Clinton
“When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.”
Bill Clinton
“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”
President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

Gun Control Quotes: Quotes from Politicians About Gun Confiscation​

And Trump changed the definition of machine gun to ban bump stocks by executive order. Suggested we should take guns first and ask questions later in advocacy of red flag laws, and suggested he would seriously look at banning gun suppressors. Meanwhile Obama signed a bill that allowed people to carry gun in national parks and rescinded a regulation that prevented people from carrying guns in checked baggage on trains.

Not sure if you are keeping track but Trump has done more to regulate guns than Obama. The one thing that Obama did do was add the check for mental disability to the gun background check. This was rescinded by the Trump administration.

 

[Audie]

One doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to know what the 2A says.

Then tell us exactly what it means.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ever killed anyone? I have. It's a lot easier with a firearm than a baseball bat.

Provided you don't run out of ammo first killer. ;0)

 

[Stanyon]

And Trump changed the definition of machine gun to ban bump stocks by executive order. Suggested we should take guns first and ask questions later in advocacy of red flag laws, and suggested he would seriously look at banning gun suppressors. Meanwhile Obama signed a bill that allowed people to carry gun in national parks and rescinded a regulation that prevented people from carrying guns in checked baggage on trains.
Not sure if you are keeping track but Trump has done more to regulate guns than Obama. The one thing that Obama did do was add the check for mental disability to the gun background check. This was rescinded by the Trump administration.

Trump banned an accessory (bump stocks) that was largely considered a joke or gimmick in shooting circles and wanted to confiscate guns temporarily from people who reasonably posed a risk (i.e. made threats etc.) until it is shown they pose no risk at which time they could have their firearms back and is thinking about banning suppressors.
He's wasn't regulating guns, he was regulating accessories

SILENCER PURCHASING PROCESS​

Suppressors are legal to own in 42 states and growing. Suppressors can be purchased through an authorized dealer but are regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. This means there are a few extra steps for purchasing a suppressor compared to a regular firearm. The following outlines what you need to legally purchase a suppressor.

Be a resident of a state where suppressors are legal
Be at least 21 years of age
Be a United States resident
Be legally allowed to purchase a firearm
Pass an ATF background check that usually needs 6 to 9 months to process
Pay a onetime fee of $200

To purchase a suppressor, you will need to find an authorized dealer in your area. Once you find the suppressor you want, the Dealer will assist you in filling out a Form 4. This is the form you will send into ATF along with the following:

ATF Form 4 (duplicate)
FBI Form FD-258s in black ink
$200 Check to BATFE-NFA
Passport Photos
ATF Form 5320.23 (if using a trust)

Lastly, notify your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer by sending in a copy of your Form 4.
source: Silencer Purchasing Process​

 

[Audie]

But it's the conservatives that have distorted the 2nd Amendment. It very clearly says that the right to bear arms is to ensure an effective militia. And I am fully supportive of having those in a registered militia allowed to be allowed to have such arms. Since that would probably require background checks, and mental health evaluations, I see nothing wrong with such.

On the other hand, if you are NOT in a militia, there should be restrictions on what weapons of mass destruction you can own.

And while you are 'allowed' to say the things you did, it is still *anti-American* to do so. You see, even being anti-American is allowed in America. An example is claiming that effective journalism is counter to the interests of the people of the US, advocating bigotry and racism, and declaring that the Supreme Court shouldn't be obeyed.

Hmm. another constitutional scholar

 

[Curious George]

Trump banned an accessory (bump stocks) that was largely considered a joke or gimmick in shooting circles and wanted to confiscate guns temporarily from people who reasonably posed a risk (i.e. made threats etc.) until it is shown they pose no risk at which time they could have their firearms back and is thinking about banning suppressors.
He's wasn't regulating guns, he was regulating accessories

SILENCER PURCHASING PROCESS​

Suppressors are legal to own in 42 states and growing. Suppressors can be purchased through an authorized dealer but are regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. This means there are a few extra steps for purchasing a suppressor compared to a regular firearm. The following outlines what you need to legally purchase a suppressor.

Be a resident of a state where suppressors are legal
Be at least 21 years of age
Be a United States resident
Be legally allowed to purchase a firearm
Pass an ATF background check that usually needs 6 to 9 months to process
Pay a onetime fee of $200

To purchase a suppressor, you will need to find an authorized dealer in your area. Once you find the suppressor you want, the Dealer will assist you in filling out a Form 4. This is the form you will send into ATF along with the following:

ATF Form 4 (duplicate)
FBI Form FD-258s in black ink
$200 Check to BATFE-NFA
Passport Photos
ATF Form 5320.23 (if using a trust)

Lastly, notify your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer by sending in a copy of your Form 4.
source: Silencer Purchasing Process​

I am aware of the process. Did you think I was not. More importantly are you disputing that Trump said that we need to seriously consider banning silencers?

Regarding the bump stock, Trump issued an executive order that redefined the term machine gun. You can rationalize all you like but the fact is simple and indisputable: Trump has regulated guns more than Obama.