You would change your mind if you saw your wife or daughter being raped...

Really? Well when some whack job like 'W' finally decides to use his troops against U.S. Citizens, and I am pointing a gun barrel at you whos going to protect you? No one, but yourself. Better get a gun... We are due for a revolution. Don't think it can not happen here. The kind of complacency you are showing with this train of thought is what leads to regimes like the Nazis.

True dat

Well gun hater in these 27 words there is not one that states a requirement to be in a militia to bear arms.
Notice the 2nd amend states the right of the people to bear arms, not the right of the militia.
Well gun hater that case was about a guy carrying a firearm regulated by the NFA laws. The gun haters like to use the line from it where it says something like “any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.".
The funny thing about this asinine usage is the guns the gun haters banned under the late AWB had a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia” and yet the gun haters wanted them banned.
Hate groups take rights from people. This is why people that want to ban the right to bear arms are called a hate group.

The bill of rights sets up LIMITS by which the government can pass legislation.
Just because the government doesn't choose to approach those limits closely in the issue of gun control doesn't mean they don't still exist.


Read the WHOLE 2nd amendment as a sentence instead of just picking apart bits and pieces of the sentence you want to focus on.
The sentence focuses on the MILITIA.
Not the "people".


Why do you call me a gun hater?
Is it because you have a need for mindless labelling because you can't reasonably debate the issue?
I don't hate guns.


The specific issues of the case don't prevent the courts from making sweeping observations.
The statements I quoted, which I can't help but notice you lacked the moral fiber to actually address, demonstrate the court's observance of the BROADER ISSUE of how some people claim a non-existent right to own guns.


Do you recognize WHY they say it doesn't guarantee the right to keep such an instrument of death?
Because the 2nd amendment is about the MILITIA and bearing arms.

Read the whole sentence.


Can you elaborate on this claim?


I wouldn't limit it to just "take rights" from people.
Some hate groups, like with racism, are also interested in making sure that rights are never granted to a group of people in the first place.
But along these lines, you can't have a right "taken" from you which you never had.

Can you show any court ruling which establishes you as having a "right" to own guns as a private citizen?
Or can you recognize that it is just a long-standing privilege that has been observed in the United States despite the fact that the courts have never recognized any such "right" in the first place?

Well gun hater do I need to get the definition of the word “infringed”?
Hey I got it anyway for you:
“1. transitive verb disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2. transitive and intransitive verb encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way
infringing on our personal freedom”
Well gun hater I have read it. Interesting how you accuse me of “just picking apart bits and pieces” of it and all you can do is “pick the militia word”.
It does not state you must be in a militia to bear arms.
Gee are you not limiting the right of the people to bear arms?
No you hate the right to bear arms.
I posted the “specific issues”. As for gun haters most judicial people do not understand military guns. Shotguns have a long history of military use. Maybe not as short as the gun in this case but shorter then most other shotguns.
Well gun hater did not the gun haters demand and get a AWB that banned firearms that have a military use? Yes. Kind of shoots a hole in their argument. Wait one minute if I recall the gun haters constantly chant “people should not have military firearms”. This goes against the miller ruling too.
Well gun hater not once has a gun killed anyone by itself. It takes a person to do that.
Well gun hater that is because you want to take a right away from people.
Gun hater if this was true the gun haters would have demanded all guns be banned right now.

Nowhere does the 2nd amend or any law or edit or regulation state a person must be in a militia to bear arms.

I am routinely amazed by people who toss out dictionary definitions but never pause to figure out if it actually HELPS them or not.
Your definition does not.

"to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement".
There IS NO LAW mandating that people have the right to bear arms as private citizens.
There is no amendment stating that either.
There is no "right" for you to have privately owned guns.


No. Not at all.
I acknowledge that "the militia" and "the people" are both parts of that amendment.
Unlike you, I am talking about the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN those two words.

The courts have consistently ruled that "the people" is referring to being a part of "the militia". The main issue involved is "the militia".


How can I hate that which doesn't exist?


You posted the "specific issues"?
No you didn't.

I pointed out the SPECIFIC issue that the courts DO NOT interpret the constitution as you do.
I pointed out the SPECIFIC issue that the courts HAVE NEVER interpreted the constitution as you do.

I see no response or acknowledgement of those facts.
Instead, you try to side-track the issue by talkking about shotguns?


Having served in the military, I have learned the common courtesy of not using an abbreviation or acronym until it has been fully established what that abbreviation or acronym is.
This is the second time I will be asking you what you are referring to with "AWB". Hopefully you'll actually answer this time?

Regardless, your logic is rather stunted. The courts do not interpret the right as being to guns having a military purpose. The right is with regards to the military USE of the gun. As in the military ACTUALLY USING a gun.

Maybe if you explain what you are referencing with AWB this conversation can proceed further?


You obviously have no clue as to what the miller ruling actually means.
Are you suffering from a form of dyslexia whereby you transpose words around when you read things?
The Miller ruling stated: "[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

It's not talking about people having "military firearms".
It's talking about the PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment right pertaining to the MILITARY HAVING firearms.


You're right.
It's the combination of the gun AND the person which has killed people.
And which part of that equation has more rights?
The person?
Or the gun?

Regardless, your response is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that the gun doesn't kill anybody by itself.
That situation has no bearing on the fact that the second amendment doesn't grant private citizens any rights with regards to firearms.


This is like talking to a crazy person.
It's like you're criticizing me for taking away Carol's giant purple bunny when Carol never had any such bunny in the first place.

How can I take away a "right" that you never had in the first place?


Ahhh. More faulty logic.
You can't answer the question, so you pose a false hypothetical to pretend to prove something.

Part of the problem is that you have blindly assumed what "gun haters" are like in the first place.
Do you even know what my position is on a person's capability to own firearms?

Or have you just blindly assumed away without a clue?

In this country, we have no "right" to buy cigarettes.
But does the fact that "cigarette haters" haven't "demanded all cigarettes be banned right now" mean anything about a "right" to buy cigarettes?


Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
Also, don't look at any court ruling on the subject, as they will typically puncture your delusions on the subject...

See gun hater that is because you want to ban the right to bear arms. The 2nd amend states the right of the people not the militia.
Wrong again gun hater I never said what you claim. The 2nd amend does say a well regulated militia, but it does not say a person must be in a militia to bear arms. So this makes it clear that you gun hater are doing what you claim I am. You know picking on one part of the amendment while ignoring the other part.
Again gun hater are you using the miller case? All guns have a military purpose rather you like it or not.
Gun hater this is the very same way the racist replied to the Black Americans when they were fighting for rights.
the games gun haters play to muddy the issue. AWB Assault Weapons Ban.
Do some research gun hater shotguns have been used by the military for a long time.
Gun hater you may wish to read up on close quarter combat. Shorter is better.
Gun hater you may want to read up on how many things have been used to kill people before you spout bs like this. You be a banning everything.

Don't feed the troll.

DHard3006, you demonstrate little in the realm of English comprehension and the like, so I'll make this plain.

1) Courts DO NOT recognize a right of the private citizen to bear arms.
You have been repeatedly challenged to show any court recognizing such a claimed right, but you consistently ignore the challenge.
This issue isn't even really being refuted in the courts, unless you can enlighten me as to any case which is promulgating a private citizen "right to bear arms" ideology.

2) You repeatedly misrepresent me and the statements of the court.
Nobody is saying that there is a right to own weaponry that the military uses. Miller said nothing of the sort.

The way you cut and paste my response demonstrates that you are trying to misrepresent my clear statements. If you continue in arguing against things that aren't said, there is no point in trying to continue in a battle of wits with the unarmed.