DaVinci

Ah, so insulting a poster by saying something he did or wrote was stupid is fair game mod?

When you play the player and not the ball.

Perhaps... But as long as it's used mainly on the darker side of town, then I don't have any issues. It may be a very effective tool in controlling crime. REALLY?!??!?!?!?!? WOW. So it is ok to deny citizens rights based on where they live? Please tell me you are joking.

True, but just because the NSA could be reading your emails and listening to your phone calls does not..... Oh, never mind. See the problem?

Mods.... I thought personal attacks were not allowed?

Sure, you claimed it was only OPINION in this case, but have in other cases stated that only the SC *decisions* mattered. You can't have it both ways... Claim on the SC matters till they DECIDE on something you don't like and then revert to calling it 'just an opinion'.

Reading is fundamental. You said " It gives a right to the people in order to secure the free state." And you are wrong. It is "A" free state.

How is "Shall not be infringed" a difficult statement? And the words there are pretty clear. And while you TRY to say nothing else matters, the Supreme Court in rendering their decision LOOKED AT THE WRITINGS OF THE FOUNDERS and a whole slew of other information. So while you can try to say it does not matter, the SC looked at all of that so it must matter. Will you just admit that you CAN'T find a single quote from a founding father supporting your position? We all know you will be unable, you could at least be honest with yourself that your position is not supported by any writing or quote from a Founding Father. Still waiting on you to answer this: As passed my Congress: 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. As ratified by the States: 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. The one thing that has NO commas is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" Simply put your argument is the weakest possible. Anyone without an agenda and that can read English can tell you what that means. But for fun.... A well educated electorate, being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. or A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Would you claim that it only allows people who vote to own and read books? Would you claim that only books would be allowed and nothing on a E-Reader? Would you claim that only small books would be allowed? YOU brought up the comma and tried to claim it meant something. I just proved to you that it does not... Further the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.... so your argument is moot. And neither is denying rights to people because you don't like them.... Does THAT sound like the basis of a fair democracy?

Already ruled as unconstitutional. Would you support the SAME act for voting? For the right of protection against illegal searches?

And I ask, again... Find me ONE comment from a founding father saying that citizens should not be allowed to own weapons.... ONE.

There is no "if" - It was the intent. All you have to do to prove that to yourself is to read history and the works of the Founding Fathers. I have asked this before and people ignored it, so I ask again.... Find ONE quote from a Founding Father that thinks citizens should not be allowed to own military weapons. F18 for sale: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/17/content_306823.htm http://xpda.com/f18ebay/

That statement does not fit with this diatribe of yours: "And it especially sucks when it falls right along ideological lines. I don't think the Supreme Court ought to work like that. I think the Supreme Court ought to be unbiased and fair arbiters of the Constitution; not ideologues beholding to the party of the President who put them in power. I'm not saying it's always the case, but you start looking at enough 5/4 decisions and it sure as hell looks that way. It sucks for the country because what it means is fairness isn't being decided; it means decisions are de facto being made by other decisions made possibly 20 or more years previous and swing based on the possible happenstance death and reappointment of another ideologue" So is this a case of ideologues, or is it not 'perfectly clear'?

It is also entirely possible: 1. They stole the weapon. 2. They bought the weapon on the black market. 3. They stole the weapon off of the last guy they killed 4. They made the weapon 5. They went back in time and bought the weapon before it was illegal. 6. They went forward in time and bought it when they were 18 and then gave it to themselves... Lots of possibilities. Funny how you went with the one that seems to support your position.... Never mind that even the Mancin Toomey bill would not have prevented their parents from giving it to them. So what law would you like to see that would have prevented this? In detail please.

And what law would have prevented it? Remember, all three of these kids are under 18 so they are not legally allowed to buy a firearm.

And YOU should realize that was a 5/4 decision.

Donald Trump is a pretty significant blowhard. I would not consider him a valid source of anything but how to get publicity or deal in real estate.

Actually no... It was you, the anti-gun folks, who try to play tricks with the placement of the commas. As passed my Congress: 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. As ratified by the States: 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. The one thing that has NO commas is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" Simply put your argument is the weakest possible. Anyone without an agenda and that can read English can tell you what that means. But for fun.... A well educated electorate, being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. or A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Would you claim that it only allows people who vote to own and read books? Would you claim that only books would be allowed and nothing on a E-Reader? Would you claim that only small books would be allowed? YOU brought up the comma and tried to claim it meant something. I just proved to you that it does not... Further the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.... so your argument is moot.

Then you might want to remember that they RULED it was an INDIVIDUAL right and that self defense was protected: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. Then McDonald incorporated it to the States. You have nothing but personal opinion. We have the Quotes from the Founding Fathers (Find ONE quote saying citizens should not be allowed), the Second itself (THE PEOPLE have the right), and the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.

Oh look, personal attacks. Mods, I thought these were not allowed? Ah no. It says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" "A", not "the" You might want to read it again.... Because you are substituting words... It seems it is the only way your opinion would carry any weight on this issue. And as you like to say, the Supreme Court is the final say, and they ruled in Heller that self defense is supported by the 2nd. Game- Set - Match.

It amazes me that some people stop reading after a comma. Basic English. The militia part is stating the REASON. The METHOD is the PEOPLE being able to retain arms. I am amazed that you try to claim that every other right that says THE PEOPLE is an individual right, but suddenly claim collectivism on the second and ONLY on the 2nd. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (The reason) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (the method). Really simple to anyone that does not have an agenda..... Besides, the Supreme Court has already ruled it is an individual right. So your argument is moot.

McCain was a terrible choice, but no where near the edge. He was born on a military post. I can't wait to see those that told the birthers to shut up about it suddenly care about the issue now that it is Cruz and not Obama. For the record, most of you on here try to claim I am a birther. Because I did support asking to see Obama's BC (as anyone running for President should be required to provide, IMO). But once that was provided it was a done deal.

Agreed. What amazes me is how people who swear the 1st, 4th etc all are individual rights try to claim that the 2nd is somehow a collective right. And it amazes me how normally smart people refuse to understand basic, simple English. "Shall not be infringed" must mean something else to them... But they would not accept those same infringements on other rights.

The right of ----> THE PEOPLE

The 2nd is legally codified. And nowhere does it exclude internal threats.

Actually it 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." Nowhere in there does it *exclude* internal threats. It mentions threats and that includes internal threats. US v Cruikshank (1875): "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." McDonald V Chicago the SC ruled that the State can't restrict the right, just like the Federal Govt can't.... Why would the citizens need to be protected from the Govt taking something if the only reason was to support the Govt? In Heller: "The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28"