Trumps wins NRA endorsement, blasts Clinton on gun stance at forum

[Gorgodeus]

I say again.
The second amendment is a restriction on the powers of the United states.
Why do you need an amendment to ban the US from doing what is against its own self interest?


This would have been the amendment then.
You do know that there is no proviso for a draft in the constitution right?
If the amendment was solely about ensuring the US have a militia to call on, wouldn't that have been included?
Your interpretation is literally pants on head retarded and divorced from reality.

- - - Updated - - -


No, but they were certainly also armed with guns.
I'm saying that, if the US army were to try and 'occupy' the US, its not unreasonable to think the outcome is similar to those i mentioned.

Your whole argument falls apart when former SC justices have stated exactly what I have said.

- - - Updated - - -

hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha oh my lord I SERIOUSLY hope you're joking.. my god.

Only thing funny is you that you are too ignorant to know that in countries that ban guns, gun violence is tremendously lower.

[Ghostpanther]

What case was this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...t-someone.html one of those dumb rulings. Best not to rely on the police to protect you.

[Deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separa...s_and_balances
Go read this then we can talk. Since US became independent there hasn't been any dictatorship because of separation of power and checks and balances.

Yes, because the South American and African carbon copies of your presidential system haven't been clearly associated with dictatorships.

[Ghostpanther]

So does this mean that people can only own a gun if they are between the ages of 17 and 39, and those with disabilities cannot? Because those are the loosest requirements to join any branch of the military.

Very good question and one which to myself, shows the 2nd amendment was not just about a militia. If anything, logic should tell us a person handicapped in a wheel chair, but otherwise able to hold and fire a handgun for example, should for sure be allowed to have one for self defense.

[Deleted]

Your whole argument falls apart when former SC justices have stated exactly what I have said.

either they are pants on head retarded, or more likely, you didn't understand what they said.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...t-someone.html one of those dumb rulings. Best not to rely on the police to protect you.

Its not as bad as you think - It just means the state cannot be held liable for failing to protect people.

[Deleted]

Yes, because the South American and African carbon copies of your presidential system haven't been clearly associated with dictatorships.

Now you are making strawman argument.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -

Its not as bad as you think - It just means the state cannot be held liable for failing to protect people.

Which is still bad as I think. :P

[Deleted]

Now you are making strawman argument.

No, im not.
The US system has been copied a number of times in SA and Africa - Quite a lot of them are dictatorships, or have been.

[Hooked]

I need to become an NRA member because the globalists will never end their war on freedoms and it takes a powerful organization of grass roots citizens to fight back against their evil plans.

[Deleted]

No, im not.
The US system has been copied a number of times in SA and Africa - Quite a lot of them are dictatorships, or have been.

Situation in SA and Africa are very different than in US. Over there constitution doesn't mean much, you said it yourself its been copied from US.

[Gorgodeus]

either they are pants on head retarded, or more likely, you didn't understand what they said.

Ah, so everyone other than yourself is stupid. When grasping at straws, ad hominem time.

[Ghostpanther]

Situation in SA and Africa are very different than in US. Over there constitution doesn't mean much, you said it yourself its been copied from US.

A dictatorship fear was not the reason for the 2nd amendment in my opinion. There are too many checks and balances to make sure that does not happen here. Which now for over 200 years, has not. :P The militia was mainly a way to mobilize a resistance to a foreign invasion or a native American raid/uprising. Today the National Guard fulfills that need and more.

[Deleted]

A dictatorship fear was not the reason for the 2nd amendment in my opinion. There are too many checks and balances to make sure that does not happen here. Which now for over 200 years, has not. :P The militia was mainly a way to mobilize a resistance to a foreign invasion or a native American raid/uprising. Today the National Guard fulfills that need and more.

Yep that's what I said. GoblinP was making the dictatorship argument to justify second amendment.

[Deleted]

Situation in SA and Africa are very different than in US. Over there constitution doesn't mean much, you said it yourself its been copied from US.

yes, but you just said that the checks and balances exerted a magic liberal influence?

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, so everyone other than yourself is stupid. When grasping at straws, ad hominem time.

Get me your quote then.
But you were the one who thought that the states in the amendment was referring to the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep that's what I said. GoblinP was making the dictatorship argument to justify second amendment.

No, i didn't.
I said that to guard against tyranny was one reason for it existing.

[Allybeboba]

What? The NRA endorsed the GOP candidate? Shocking!


Equally shocking is Trump using over the top rhetoric like Hillary wanting to repeat the 2nd amendment.

Which of course begs the question -- what is there to discuss here?

And equally shocking is that a Democrat wants to put tighter gun control laws in place when it has been proven to not work in the US. Take a look at Chicago and Detroit. Both cities have been run by Democrats for decades. Have the tightest gun restrictions, yet have the most gun related crime. Why?? Because criminals don't follow the law...
Democrats are supported by criminals, they feel they in turn must support them, right?

[Wells]

And equally shocking is that a Democrat wants to put tighter gun control laws in place when it has been proven to not work in the US. Take a look at Chicago and Detroit. Both cities have been run by Democrats for decades. Have the tightest gun restrictions, yet have the most gun related crime. Why?? Because criminals don't follow the law...

I was gonna guess because a collapsing manufacturing sector has reduced economic activity in the area, but who am I to argue with "because criminals don't follow the law"?

[Kioshi]

All I know is if its Hillary or Trump, I'm going Trump. But if its Trump and anyone other than Hillary, I will for for the other.

[The Stormbringer]

Has Trump lifted the no firearms policy of his hotels yet?

I mean he has the power to end some gun free zones right now. Whats holding him back?

You, sir, get a cookie.

[Gorgodeus]

Get me your quote then.
But you were the one who thought that the states in the amendment was referring to the US.

Guess I will have to explain to you, seeing as you are incapable of seeing the politicizing of the Constitution. The GOP and Conservatives decided that they were going after the gun wielders vote by pandering to the NRA, and Conservative judges have followed along. It was not always this way.

In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court
By Mark Tushnet

The Dictionary of Misinformation, published in 1975, asserted confidently: "Nothing in the Constitution...forbids the right of federal or state governments to make any gun-control laws they wish in terms of an individual who is not a member of a 'well-regulated militia' " in November 1991, Robert Bork said that "the National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is the peoples' right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding." A month later, retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, hardly a flaming liberal, repeated on the Mac-Neil/Lehrer NewsHour some ideas he had published two years earlier, though in more heated terms, saying that the NRA had perpetuated "one of the greatest pieces of fraud" and "misled the American people" into thinking that the Second Amendment had anything to do with an individual's right to own guns outside the militia setting.

In the 1990s Robert Bork was an icon for Conservative legal thinkers. Warren Burger was a conventional conservative Republican throughout his career. But by the 1990s the party had left them both behind, at least on the issue of the Second Amenedment. The Republican Party had adopted the NRA's "fradulent" claim that the Second Amendment protected every individuals right to own guns. Gun rights advocates developed what they cleverly labeled the "Standard Model" of the Second Amendment's original meaning. Their originalism triumphed in 2008 when Justice Antonin Scalia wrote what legal academics accurately described as the most thoroughly originalist opinion in modern times, striking down the District of Columbia's complete ban on gun possession in the city.

https://books.google.com/books?id=3R...ing%5D&f=false

Also of note is the fact that the NRA was originally, for most of its' first 100 years, strictly a sport hunting organization. An NRA "fact book" published in 1975 stated that the Second Amendment was "of limited practical utility" for ordinary gun control debates. The NRA then discovered they could greatly grow their membership by changing stances on everything they had previously stood for, simply by catering to gun advocates.

The simple fact is, the only reason guns have not been banned is due to the political shenanigans of the GOP and the NRA.

- - - Updated - - -

And equally shocking is that a Democrat wants to put tighter gun control laws in place when it has been proven to not work in the US. Take a look at Chicago and Detroit. Both cities have been run by Democrats for decades. Have the tightest gun restrictions, yet have the most gun related crime. Why?? Because criminals don't follow the law...
Democrats are supported by criminals, they feel they in turn must support them, right?

Because one can't simply drive outside those cities to purchase a gun, right? Guns would have to be abolished nation-wide, in order for it to work.

[Deleted]

yes, but you just said that the checks and balances exerted a magic liberal influence?

Now you are just pulling words out of your ass.

No, i didn't.
I said that to guard against tyranny was one reason for it existing.

Yes you did. You have very short memory span so I will quote you "Safer yes, but what would you do if the government decided to go all fascist and dictatorial?"