LarsMac
Well-known member
Can you quote Second Amendment, in full, for us?Can you please tell us which amendment guarantees our right to drive. Unless there is one it makes your argument a moot point.
Can you quote Second Amendment, in full, for us?Can you please tell us which amendment guarantees our right to drive. Unless there is one it makes your argument a moot point.
Sure, but some have a lifetime supply of such stuff. And there are a lot of people who stocked up on ammo in CA while they were talking about the BGCs for ammo.s far as loading our own I do and if they were able to stop the sale of ammo they would also more than likely stop the sale of the components to make it.
Nowhere does it say a militia is required. One of a million possible reasons being listed for the right doesn't mean the right to use guns for hunting can be infringed. And the issue has been settled at the SCOTUS. Case is closed.Can you quote Second Amendment, in full, for us?
I know there is nothing in there about tests or training. I am the first one that thinks anybody that uses firearms should know how to safely but comparing a right to a privilege is silly even if you don't agree with the right.Can you quote Second Amendment, in full, for us?
Who is ignoring the responsibilities?"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."
It's right there. Plain as day.
Any discussion that only talks about the rights of an individual, and ignores the responsibilities of the same individual is doing a disservice to us all.
Case is not closed. SCOTUS can reverse case law and precedent.Nowhere does it say a militia is required. One of a million possible reasons being listed for the right doesn't mean the right to use guns for hunting can be infringed. And the issue has been settled at the SCOTUS. Case is closed.
-Don- Reno, NV
Very unlikely on this issue.Case is not closed. SCOTUS can reverse case law and precedent.
Very unlikely is much different than case closed.Very unlikely on this issue.
-Don- Reno, NV
I can agree with that much. About the only CA gun law I agree with is their firearm safety certificate which makes sure you at least know the basics of firearm safety.I am the first one that thinks anybody that uses firearms should know how to safely
It's closed for now and it's very unlikely to go back to the SCOTUS in our lifetimes.Very unlikely is much different than case closed.
"Who is ignoring the responsibilities?
I agree that is stupid and not responsible but I for one do not ignore the responsibilities so can't see why I should lose my right because of that guy in Walmart."
...I have an example.
I saw a guy in Walmart with his semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine stuck in the front of pants. That may be technically legal in AZ but from my perspective it’s irresponsible and a bad decision. Who knows, he may have blown his junk off by now.
"
You want a list of examples?
And where was there ever a suggestion that you "...should lose my right because of that guy in Walmart." ?I agree that is stupid and not responsible but I for one do not ignore the responsibilities so can't see why I should lose my right because of that guy in Walmart.
FWIW do you know if the semi auto was loaded? Would it have been OK if he was not using an extended magazine?
You are welcome. It has been fun.And where was there ever a suggestion that you "...should lose my right because of that guy in Walmart." ?
as for "FWIW do you know if the semi auto was loaded? Would it have been OK if he was not using an extended magazine?"
From my earliest Firearm training, "There is no such thing as an unloaded firearm." And, It matters little what sort of magazine it has." That was not my anecdote. And I have no more to say to you.
Thanks for playing.
How about this part, the only part of the 2nd Amendment that is meaningful to all of us, direct from the SCOTUS:an you quote Second Amendment, in full, for us?
Anything NOT mentioned in the US Constitution is a State's Rights issue. So that issue can vary by state.There's nothing in the constitution about that is there
Read this, then my definition below:"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."
It's right there. Plain as day.
Any discussion that only talks about the rights of an individual, and ignores the responsibilities of the same individual is doing a disservice to us all.
So the 2nd Amendment only applies to males between the ages of 17-45 and females that are citizens and members of the National Guard.The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.