Well-Regulated Militia

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

keep kicking over those chess pieces, pigeon. you have done nothing but spew the standard NRA line.

I didnt know Madison was a member of the NRA. But either if thats the NRA position I am more then happy to get behind it.

And once again that question is explained in the video. So if you would like to explain where Penn is wrong let me know.

if you are referring to the sign on the blackboard as madison's words, i ask once more for you to show me the well-regulated militia that's supposed to be going along with gun ownership.

i refuse to watch the video. argue in your own words please.

sign on the blackboard? Im referring to Drleftovers post. Refuse but I still am saying tell me where Penn got it wrong in the video.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

keep kicking over those chess pieces, pigeon. you have done nothing but spew the standard NRA line.

And I will do my best.

You

 

[TommyTooter]

keep kicking over those chess pieces, pigeon. you have done nothing but spew the standard NRA line.

I didnt know Madison was a member of the NRA. But either if thats the NRA position I am more then happy to get behind it.

And once again that question is explained in the video. So if you would like to explain where Penn is wrong let me know.

if you are referring to the sign on the blackboard as madison's words, i ask once more for you to show me the well-regulated militia that's supposed to be going along with gun ownership.

i refuse to watch the video. argue in your own words please.

sign on the blackboard? Im referring to Drleftovers post. Refuse but I still am saying tell me where Penn got it wrong in the video.

i'm telling you i refuse to watch the video or argue with anybody who uses memes and videos to make their point. i have my standards. tell me in your own words , please , where the regulations are for the well-regulated militia called for in the second amendment? is it possible to even have a well-regulated militia without regulations.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

keep kicking over those chess pieces, pigeon. you have done nothing but spew the standard NRA line.

I didnt know Madison was a member of the NRA. But either if thats the NRA position I am more then happy to get behind it.

And once again that question is explained in the video. So if you would like to explain where Penn is wrong let me know.

if you are referring to the sign on the blackboard as madison's words, i ask once more for you to show me the well-regulated militia that's supposed to be going along with gun ownership.

i refuse to watch the video. argue in your own words please.

sign on the blackboard? Im referring to Drleftovers post. Refuse but I still am saying tell me where Penn got it wrong in the video.

i'm telling you i refuse to watch the video or argue with anybody who uses memes and videos to make their point. i have my standards. tell me in your own words , please , where the regulations are for the well-regulated militia called for in the second amendment? is it possible to even have a well-regulated militia without regulations.

You post videos on other topics but you won't respond to one yourself. LOl! So I will once again refer you to the quote and video. Then we can move on with this topic or not unless someone else chimes in.

 

[TommyTooter]

why don't you go read the OP again and respond to that because that's what i've been pressing you for from the beginning? for the last time, post the quote you want me to read with your own comments. i do not argue with vidiots.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

why don't you go read the OP again and respond to that because that's what i've been pressing you for from the beginning? for the last time, post the quote you want me to read with your own comments. i do not argue with vidiots.

But you post them. lol!

 

[TommyTooter]

why don't you go read the OP again and respond to that because that's what i've been pressing you for from the beginning? for the last time, post the quote you want me to read with your own comments. i do not argue with vidiots.

But you post them. lol!

rarely without any comment at all. i use my own words to argue with and links to back my points, something that quite a few of you self-proclaimed conservatives don't seem to be able to do very well. telling somebody they're wrong and then posting a link as your proof won't cut in a real debate.

 

[Bluezone777]

Perhaps they just post the video without commentary of their own is because they have so much faith in the message within the video that they need not say anything as they trust it is enough. By posting a video, there had to be a lot of thought that went into whether the message was sufficient to illustrate their beliefs on the subject. If they didn't think the video was sufficient to display the points they had or had beliefs they did and didn't share then they wouldn't post it. That's the way I see it at least.

The second amendment is broken into two parts. One ensures the right of the people to form an army to defend itself from tyranny and the other ensures the right of people to carry firearms to defend themselves from the evil in the world. It will be the presence of firearms that keeps tyranny from ever entering our land and it will be the end of this amendment that ensures tyranny reigns in this country. Sure they can just overpower the people even if they have firearms but the revolutionary war was not won through superior firepower but superior will. The will of the people to be free overpowered the armies of the British as they had the upper hand in everything but one thing which was the will to overcome. The average man used firearms to break down the will of the British till they could no longer have the will to fight and that's how they won. This is why the second amendment was put into place to ensure that we would never fall back into that as long as that and other amendments stayed in place and were enforced.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

why don't you go read the OP again and respond to that because that's what i've been pressing you for from the beginning? for the last time, post the quote you want me to read with your own comments. i do not argue with vidiots.

But you post them. lol!

telling somebody they're wrong and then posting a link as your proof won't cut in a real debate.

Im telling people this is the way I see it. Then people respond and agree or disagree on the format I chosen to do so. Then I respond on that answer.

 

[TommyTooter]

Perhaps they just post the video without commentary of their own is because they have so much faith in the message within the video that they need not say anything as they trust it is enough. By posting a video, there had to be a lot of thought that went into whether the message was sufficient to illustrate their beliefs on the subject. If they didn't think the video was sufficient to display the points they had or had beliefs they did and didn't share then they wouldn't post it. That's the way I see it at least.

The second amendment is broken into two parts. One ensures the right of the people to form an army to defend itself from tyranny and the other ensures the right of people to carry firearms to defend themselves from the evil in the world. It will be the presence of firearms that keeps tyranny from ever entering our land and it will be the end of this amendment that ensures tyranny reigns in this country. Sure they can just overpower the people even if they have firearms but the revolutionary war was not won through superior firepower but superior will. The will of the people to be free overpowered the armies of the British as they had the upper hand in everything but one thing which was the will to overcome. The average man used firearms to break down the will of the British till they could no longer have the will to fight and that's how they won. This is why the second amendment was put into place to ensure that we would never fall back into that as long as that and other amendments stayed in place and were enforced.

you're preaching to the choir on the spirit of the second amendment, but you're not addressing the question in the OP which is about the practice of it. where are the well-regulated militias? why must we endure pointless displays of firearms in public places when gun owners can't even protect themselves and their families from getting killed by them?

the argument always centers around criminal violence from guns in which the gun is playing a key role in a premeditated crime. what about the 45% of all suicides that are committed by handguns, the children who shoot themselves or somebody else by accident or family members who get shot in a fit of passion?

guns are dangerous. owning them presents a threat to the owner, their family and community. the second amendment guarantees our right to own them and expresses the need for a well regulated militia.

how do we regulate them? i propose they be licensed and registered just like motor vehicles with background checks, written and practical exams required. sure criminals are going to still commit crimes but at least we have taken some steps to reduce gun injury and deaths from other causes.

 

[TommyTooter]

why don't you go read the OP again and respond to that because that's what i've been pressing you for from the beginning? for the last time, post the quote you want me to read with your own comments. i do not argue with vidiots.

But you post them. lol!

telling somebody they're wrong and then posting a link as your proof won't cut in a real debate.

Im telling people this is the way I see it. Then people respond and agree or disagree on the format I chosen to do so. Then I respond on that answer.

delude yourself all you like about what you think you're doing. from this end it looks like a true believer posting links because he can't express what he believes in his own words.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

why don't you go read the OP again and respond to that because that's what i've been pressing you for from the beginning? for the last time, post the quote you want me to read with your own comments. i do not argue with vidiots.

But you post them. lol!

telling somebody they're wrong and then posting a link as your proof won't cut in a real debate.

Im telling people this is the way I see it. Then people respond and agree or disagree on the format I chosen to do so. Then I respond on that answer.

delude yourself all you like about what you think you're doing. from this end it looks like a true believer posting links because he can't express what he believes in his own words.

I am for sure a true believer. No doubt about it. Just tell me how Madisons quote and the video is wrong and we can stop this oh so sweet dance we are doing.

 

[TommyTooter]

why don't you go read the OP again and respond to that because that's what i've been pressing you for from the beginning? for the last time, post the quote you want me to read with your own comments. i do not argue with vidiots.

But you post them. lol!

telling somebody they're wrong and then posting a link as your proof won't cut in a real debate.

Im telling people this is the way I see it. Then people respond and agree or disagree on the format I chosen to do so. Then I respond on that answer.

delude yourself all you like about what you think you're doing. from this end it looks like a true believer posting links because he can't express what he believes in his own words.

I am for sure a true believer. No doubt about it. Just tell me how Madisons quote and the video is wrong and we can stop this oh so sweet dance we are doing.

sorry, but that's not the way debates work. you have failed to respond to the question in the OP. show me some well-regulated militia or the reason there isn't one in your own words or simply say that you are too much of a narrow minded fanatic and intellectually incompetent to respond to the question posed in the OP. otherwise, i stopped dancing with you at least five remarks ago and will quit all together if you come back with yet more disingenous, deflective tripe. answer the question or buzz off, okay?

 

[Bluezone777]

They could easily be referring to the army with that line or the national guard but that doesn't separate the part of the common man being allowed to possess firearms either as it implies the militia and the people are one and the same. Who else is going to defend this country but people? We have enough regulations as handing over any more power to the government on guns will just make them want more till they have all the power over them. Oddly enough, none of these politicians seem willing to give up their armed escorts when they pass gun restrictions on the rest of us. Why is that? Do they perhaps feel a little unsafe without them and if so then why do they think we would be any safer without the ability to defend ourselves?

It's fully understood that some freedom is necessary to be given up for the sake of safety. Every inch of safety comes at the price of an inch of freedom. Some freedom is deemed too costly to keep hence why we give it up which is why we have regulations in the first place. This is why we don't let kids own guns for example. However there comes a point where the price of not having the freedom is higher then having it which is why people are so against giving the government any more power and especially against them effectively repealing the second amendment.

My ideas for fair gun regulations are as follows.

1. No one under the age of 16 can own a fire arm.

2. Anyone between 16 and 18 must have parent/guardian permission to own and use a firearm.

3. Those deemed mentally ill in which they have shown themselves to be violent or have severely impaired mental functions because of it either to themselves or others are barred for as long as they are declared mentally ill. It would be licensed doctor dealing with mental health that is able to declare someone mentally ill or not. This would also include those suffering from mental health issues such as dementia, Alzheimer, etc.

4. Anyone convicted of a violent crime be barred for owning a firearm. If you show yourself unfit to use your freedoms responsibly then you don't deserve to have them.

5. Anyone who has caused injury or loss of life due to improper handling, storage or use of a firearm. If you show yourself irresponsible when owning one then you no longer should have the right to own one.

If you are a responsible firearm owner who is mentally fit and not a criminal or negligence with their handling, storage, and use of firearms will not have any problems and should have nothing to fear from these rules provided they be carried out correctly and fairly. Unfortunately that's the problem which is why so many are not interested in creating more rules or making current ones stricter. I can't really blame them for that as nothing they are shown lends themselves to see it any differently.

I don't have much faith in the current government lending itself to making fair gun laws that aren't in place for the goal of eliminating guns from this country. I also don't like our President exploiting the emotions garnered from tragedy to push this agenda either. That isn't the talk a man who trusts the facts but rather one that hopes your fears will blind you to the lack of facts at work in their arguments.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

why don't you go read the OP again and respond to that because that's what i've been pressing you for from the beginning? for the last time, post the quote you want me to read with your own comments. i do not argue with vidiots.

But you post them. lol!

telling somebody they're wrong and then posting a link as your proof won't cut in a real debate.

Im telling people this is the way I see it. Then people respond and agree or disagree on the format I chosen to do so. Then I respond on that answer.

delude yourself all you like about what you think you're doing. from this end it looks like a true believer posting links because he can't express what he believes in his own words.

I am for sure a true believer. No doubt about it. Just tell me how Madisons quote and the video is wrong and we can stop this oh so sweet dance we are doing.

sorry, but that's not the way debates work. you have failed to respond to the question in the OP. show me some well-regulated militia or the reason there isn't one in your own words or simply say that you are too much of a narrow minded fanatic and intellectually incompetent to respond to the question posed in the OP. otherwise, i stopped dancing with you at least five remarks ago and will quit all together if you come back with yet more disingenous, deflective tripe. answer the question or buzz off, okay?

Debate works however a person chooses to respond to a opinion they agree or disagree with. So I and DrLeftover have decided on a video and quote that clearly shows the intent of the founders. You use videos many times in your debates to prove points so at this point you are just being stubborn to not answer these questions proposed to you because and you have no argument to fight against the answers given to you.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

They could easily be referring to the army with that line or the national guard but that doesn't separate the part of the common man being allowed to possess firearms either as it implies the militia and the people are one and the same. Who else is going to defend this country but people? We have enough regulations as handing over any more power to the government on guns will just make them want more till they have all the power over them. Oddly enough, none of these politicians seem willing to give up their armed escorts when they pass gun restrictions on the rest of us. Why is that? Do they perhaps feel a little unsafe without them and if so then why do they think we would be any safer without the ability to defend ourselves?

It's fully understood that some freedom is necessary to be given up for the sake of safety. Every inch of safety comes at the price of an inch of freedom. Some freedom is deemed too costly to keep hence why we give it up which is why we have regulations in the first place. This is why we don't let kids own guns for example. However there comes a point where the price of not having the freedom is higher then having it which is why people are so against giving the government any more power and especially against them effectively repealing the second amendment.

My ideas for fair gun regulations are as follows.

1. No one under the age of 16 can own a fire arm.

2. Anyone between 16 and 18 must have parent/guardian permission to own and use a firearm.

3. Those deemed mentally ill in which they have shown themselves to be violent or have severely impaired mental functions because of it either to themselves or others are barred for as long as they are declared mentally ill. It would be licensed doctor dealing with mental health that is able to declare someone mentally ill or not. This would also include those suffering from mental health issues such as dementia, Alzheimer, etc.

4. Anyone convicted of a violent crime be barred for owning a firearm. If you show yourself unfit to use your freedoms responsibly then you don't deserve to have them.

5. Anyone who has caused injury or loss of life due to improper handling, storage or use of a firearm. If you show yourself irresponsible when owning one then you no longer should have the right to own one.

If you are a responsible firearm owner who is mentally fit and not a criminal or negligence with their handling, storage, and use of firearms will not have any problems and should have nothing to fear from these rules provided they be carried out correctly and fairly. Unfortunately that's the problem which is why so many are not interested in creating more rules or making current ones stricter. I can't really blame them for that as nothing they are shown lends themselves to see it any differently.

I don't have much faith in the current government lending itself to making fair gun laws that aren't in place for the goal of eliminating guns from this country. I also don't like our President exploiting the emotions garnered from tragedy to push this agenda either. That isn't the talk a man who trusts the facts but rather one that hopes your fears will blind you to the lack of facts at work in their arguments.

Good point! When the president, politicians and liberal stars give up the armed protection they are provided I will empty my safe.

Could not disagree more about the age of who should own a gun. I got my first rifle at 8 years old and handgun at 12 and those were some of the best childhood days of my life learning lessons and practicing with my friends. Kids used to bring there guns to school for programs done by the schools. My high school had kids bringing there pickup trucks with rifles on there gun racks in the truck. Shooting in schools were not even a thought to be considered. Its our disintegration values and morals in todays world thats the problem not the age of who have them.

Deemed mentally ill. This scares me because then government can determine very easily by stretching the law who is not fit to have a weapon.

I have no faith at all in our government or anything they do at this current time.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Perhaps they just post the video without commentary of their own is because they have so much faith in the message within the video that they need not say anything as they trust it is enough. By posting a video, there had to be a lot of thought that went into whether the message was sufficient to illustrate their beliefs on the subject. If they didn't think the video was sufficient to display the points they had or had beliefs they did and didn't share then they wouldn't post it. That's the way I see it at least.

The second amendment is broken into two parts. One ensures the right of the people to form an army to defend itself from tyranny and the other ensures the right of people to carry firearms to defend themselves from the evil in the world. It will be the presence of firearms that keeps tyranny from ever entering our land and it will be the end of this amendment that ensures tyranny reigns in this country. Sure they can just overpower the people even if they have firearms but the revolutionary war was not won through superior firepower but superior will. The will of the people to be free overpowered the armies of the British as they had the upper hand in everything but one thing which was the will to overcome. The average man used firearms to break down the will of the British till they could no longer have the will to fight and that's how they won. This is why the second amendment was put into place to ensure that we would never fall back into that as long as that and other amendments stayed in place and were enforced.

you're preaching to the choir on the spirit of the second amendment, but you're not addressing the question in the OP which is about the practice of it. where are the well-regulated militias? why must we endure pointless displays of firearms in public places when gun owners can't even protect themselves and their families from getting killed by them?

Twenty five states have militias separate from the national guard under the governors control.

the argument always centers around criminal violence from guns in which the gun is playing a key role in a premeditated crime. what about the 45% of all suicides that are committed by handguns, the children who shoot themselves or somebody else by accident or family members who get shot in a fit of passion?

Its sad but gun control for all is not the answer because a miniority do not take gun ownership seriously.

guns are dangerous. owning them presents a threat to the owner, their family and community. the second amendment guarantees our right to own them and expresses the need for a well regulated militia.

how do we regulate them? i propose they be licensed and registered just like motor vehicles with background checks, written and practical exams required. sure criminals are going to still commit crimes but at least we have taken some steps to reduce gun injury and deaths from other causes.

The founders meaning of regulation had nothing to do with regulating gun owners of private citizens. It only meant and nothing else that the necessary militia be well regulated but not by the federal government. Nothing will destroy gun rights faster then regulating our freedoms of gun control. When someone can give me 100% proof that every last bad guy is going to register there guns then I will listen to such foolishness.

As clearly described right here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1GNu7ldL1LM

 

[TommyTooter]

fuck off, you degenerate conservatard. argue with your own words or leave me out of your fanatical, narrow minded, hate driven game.

 

[Bluezone777]

So you are telling me a licensed doctor dealing with mental health can't deem you mentally fit? If they can't then who? I never said the government was to have any part in stating if someone was mentally fit or any conditions that are to used to determine if they should able able to own a gun as I believe that should fully rest with your doctor. I think you misread that part.

We can't use outliers when defining age of owning a firearm as being safe. I doubt a majority of kids in that age range would be safe with a gun. It doesn't mean you weren't but laws have to work with what the majority would be capable of in any given age range. I would also say that age range I gave is one you can start handing responsibility for what is done with a firearm as it wouldn't go well to put blame on a mishandled firearm on a 8 year old.

It's as much about legality in owning a firearm as it is in personal responsibility given to what happens when you are in possession and/or ownership of a firearm. I think both sides of the issue need to be addressed together. If you want rights then there has to be repercussions for misuse or incompetence displayed when using said rights. It just can't be all about rights as there has to be protections in place for those victimized by guns whether it be through malicious means or through incompetence.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

fuck off, you degenerate conservatard. argue with your own words or leave me out of your fanatical, narrow minded, hate driven game.