How about a compormise.

[zelmo1234]

I have an Idea that I think will help the Democrats get a lot of support for an age limit on the Dreaded Assault Rifle.

We were told that they wanted to introduce a bill that would require a person to be 21, but it now appears that they want them to be 25 years. old.

The reason of course is because we have to stop the murder of these innocent Children. And I agree we must protect the innocent.

And it makes sense that at age 25 a person is more mature and has a better appreciation for the human life.

So if it makes sense with the assault rifle, Then I say we also make the Minimum age that one can receive an on demand abortion 25 years old. because if you think about it all of the same rules apply to saving innocent children.

This way the new law will save Zero Children in schools where shooters want to make a name for themselves, but over the years will save millions of children that would have been murdered in the womb.

Now that is Gun control that I can get behind.

[MisterVeritis]

I have an Idea that I think will help the Democrats get a lot of support for an age limit on the Dreaded Assault Rifle.
We were told that they wanted to introduce a bill that would require a person to be 21, but it now appears that they want them to be 25 years. old.
The reason of course is because we have to stop the murder of these innocent Children. And I agree we must protect the innocent.
And it makes sense that at age 25 a person is more mature and has a better appreciation for the human life.
So if it makes sense with the assault rifle, Then I say we also make the Minimum age that one can receive an on demand abortion 25 years old. because if you think about it all of the same rules apply to saving innocent children.
This way the new law will save Zero Children in schools where shooters want to make a name for themselves, but over the years will save millions of children that would have been murdered in the womb.
Now that is Gun control that I can get behind.
We infantilize our young adults. We should stop.

[exotix]

Let me get this straight ... the compromise is the age of a person who can get an AR-15 and an Abortion ?

[zelmo1234]

Let me get this straight ... the compromise is the age of a person who can get an AR-15 and an Abortion ?
Yes I am talking about adding abortion to the bill that Diane F. is introducing to put age restrictions on AR 15 and other assault rifle purchases.

[MMC]

How about the left coming to the debate with honesty. Then start from there.


the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed......<<<<< lets not change that up.

[exotix]

How about the left coming to the debate with honesty. Then start from there.


the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed......<<<<< lets not change that up.You have to be a Well-Regulated Militia to keep and bear Arms

http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1518975179/18_bbe1ud.png

[zelmo1234]

You have to be a Well-Regulated Militia to keep and bear Arms

http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1518975179/18_bbe1ud.png

So do you have to be a media outlet to have free speech?

Because if you can read and I am sure that you can, You will notice that is says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms.

The Supreme court has ruled on this several times.

But you are correct in order for the PEOPLE to remain well regulated, we should have the right to missile launchers, tanks, things like that. So we have given up some of our constitutional rights.

I wonder how many times we have to prove these Liberals wrong. actually that answer to this is every day because they are not honorable people and they are willing to lie to get what they desire.

[MMC]

You have to be a Well-Regulated Militia to keep and bear Arms

http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1518975179/18_bbe1ud.png


Like I said.....the leftness needs to start with honesty. That which they lack. You need more education as what you demonstrate. Tis not enough.

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment


The Second Amendment:
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.
Militia
The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. (dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia)) The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a part of the well-regulated militia.[1] (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html#fn1) (As mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html), it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to only those serving active militia duty.)


For a definition of today's militia as defined, by statute, in the United States Code, click here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml).


A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias (http://www.guncite.com/rrmilitia.html), Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment (http://guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html), 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)


The People

As ample evidence illustrates below, the people, as referred to in the Constitution at the time it was written, was synonymous with citizens. Also shown below, some scholars mistakenly assume that when the Constitution refers to "the people," a collective right or entity is referenced. However, that notion is incorrect. When the term "the people" is used, it could be referring to a right that is exercised individually, collectively, or both, depending on context. Of course, the meaning of the term "the people" is the same regardless.

Why wasn't "person" or "persons" used instead of "the people" when enumerating certain individual rights? "Persons," as referred to in the Constitution, signified a wider class of people than citizens. Persons included slaves. For example, Article 2, clause 3 of the Constitution refers to slaves as persons, but they were never considered as citizens or a part of the people: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (U.S. Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)) .....snip~


http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

[exotix]

Like I said.....the leftness needs to start with honesty. That which they lack. You need more education as what you demonstrate. Tis not enough.

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment


The Second Amendment:
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.
Militia
The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. (dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia)) The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a part of the well-regulated militia.[1] (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html#fn1) (As mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html), it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to only those serving active militia duty.)


For a definition of today's militia as defined, by statute, in the United States Code, click here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml).


A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias (http://www.guncite.com/rrmilitia.html), Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment (http://guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html), 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)


The People

As ample evidence illustrates below, the people, as referred to in the Constitution at the time it was written, was synonymous with citizens. Also shown below, some scholars mistakenly assume that when the Constitution refers to "the people," a collective right or entity is referenced. However, that notion is incorrect. When the term "the people" is used, it could be referring to a right that is exercised individually, collectively, or both, depending on context. Of course, the meaning of the term "the people" is the same regardless.

Why wasn't "person" or "persons" used instead of "the people" when enumerating certain individual rights? "Persons," as referred to in the Constitution, signified a wider class of people than citizens. Persons included slaves. For example, Article 2, clause 3 of the Constitution refers to slaves as persons, but they were never considered as citizens or a part of the people: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (U.S. Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)) .....snip~


http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.htmlYou actually have the gall to talk about honesty by posting this ?


That debunks your right to keep and bear arms ?

[DGUtley]

I have a compromise: I will surrender my AR15 and you can ban their sale and confiscate every one of them in the country and require me to get an annual certification that I'm not crazy or a felon to enable me to transfer a gun -- provided that the left agrees that that's the last thing that the left ever will ask for in terms of gun control from now until the end of time. You will have your universal background check, requiring that anybody that transfers a weapon show the ability to own a weapon and you'll have banned that evil ugly looking AR15 but that's it -- never ever ever from now until the end of time -- no more gun control measures ever.

Deal?

[zelmo1234]

You actually have the gall to talk about honesty by posting this ?
What exactly do you feel is dishonest. It is basically what the Supreme Court has ruled?



That debunks your right to keep and bear arms ?

[zelmo1234]

I have a compromise: I will surrender my AR15 and you can ban their sale and confiscate every one of them in the country and require me to get an annual certification that I'm not crazy or a felon to enable me to transfer a gun -- provided that the left agrees that that's the last thing that the left ever will ask for in terms of gun control from now until the end of time. You will have your universal background check, requiring that anybody that transfers a weapon show the ability to own a weapon and you'll have banned that evil ugly looking AR15 but that's it -- never ever ever from now until the end of time -- no more gun control measures ever.

Deal?
How could you trust anyone on the left? you can't

That is why I posted this. Most of them will stay away because they have no case that this is about the children. That allow hundreds of them to be murdered everyday.

It is not about criminals look at the killing fields in many of our largest cities, they have not made one move to enforce those laws, and remove those guns from the people that are not allowed to own them.

This is about getting the guns away from law abiding citizens.

[MisterVeritis]

No Bill of Rights no Constitution. The States would not ratify the very radical and dangerous Constitution without the inclusion of a bill of rights to protect the people who were citizens of their respective States. The militia is necessary to the security of the States (from the Federal government as well as from slave rebellions, insurrections and invasions). The citizens bring their own weapons with them when called to drill or to service.

No infringements. No "common sense" infringements.

Repeal the Second Amendment, and with it dissolve the united States.

[MMC]

You actually have the gall to talk about honesty by posting this ?


That debunks your right to keep and bear arms ?

No it doesn't debunk my or any Right to keep and bear arms. Since it goes straight to the constitution which is used by Judges and Lawyers. But I do understand why you can't debunk any of it and would whine about a source. That validates what it talks about wherein you can't debunk anything about it.

Hence my set up and showing why you would still not come with the honesty nor the truth.

[MisterVeritis]

I have a compromise: I will surrender my AR15 and you can ban their sale and confiscate every one of them in the country and require me to get an annual certification that I'm not crazy or a felon to enable me to transfer a gun -- provided that the left agrees that that's the last thing that the left ever will ask for in terms of gun control from now until the end of time. You will have your universal background check, requiring that anybody that transfers a weapon show the ability to own a weapon and you'll have banned that evil ugly looking AR15 but that's it -- never ever ever from now until the end of time -- no more gun control measures ever.

Deal?
No. Shall not be infringed...

[MMC]

Zelmo said:
What exactly do you feel is dishonest. It is basically what the Supreme Court has ruled?




The left knows its not dishonest.....their problem is. They can't debunk it. They also Know the Federalist papers.....validate and confirm the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Which takes us back to the leftness not ever coming honest or truthful to the Gun Debate.
Of course exploiting children, gives the perception as to what the Leftness is all about.

[MMC]

I have a compromise: I will surrender my AR15 and you can ban their sale and confiscate every one of them in the country and require me to get an annual certification that I'm not crazy or a felon to enable me to transfer a gun -- provided that the left agrees that that's the last thing that the left ever will ask for in terms of gun control from now until the end of time. You will have your universal background check, requiring that anybody that transfers a weapon show the ability to own a weapon and you'll have banned that evil ugly looking AR15 but that's it -- never ever ever from now until the end of time -- no more gun control measures ever.

Deal?

No deal Counselor.....you know the language. Shall Not be infringed. Nada. Nothing. Nope. NO! http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/rulez.gif

[DGUtley]

No deal Counselor.....you know the language. Shall Not be infringed. Nada. Nothing. Nope. NO! :rulez:


No. Shall not be infringed...

I was being facetious; but, read Heller. It's a very good read.

[MisterVeritis]

I was being facetious; but, read Heller. It's a very good read.
I have read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They, too, are very good reads.

[Captdon]

You have to be a Well-Regulated Militia to keep and bear Arms

http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1518975179/18_bbe1ud.png

No, you don't, Einstein.

[MMC]

I was being facetious; but, read Heller. It's a very good read.


:wink:


To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."


It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.


In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.


George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."


Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s)......snip~


https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[Max Rockatansky]

I have an Idea that I think will help the Democrats get a lot of support for an age limit on the Dreaded Assault Rifle.

We were told that they wanted to introduce a bill that would require a person to be 21, but it now appears that they want them to be 25 years. old.

The reason of course is because we have to stop the murder of these innocent Children. And I agree we must protect the innocent.

And it makes sense that at age 25 a person is more mature and has a better appreciation for the human life.

So if it makes sense with the assault rifle, Then I say we also make the Minimum age that one can receive an on demand abortion 25 years old. because if you think about it all of the same rules apply to saving innocent children.

This way the new law will save Zero Children in schools where shooters want to make a name for themselves, but over the years will save millions of children that would have been murdered in the womb.

Now that is Gun control that I can get behind.
Add minimum age to vote and it would be something to consider. Especially since most of those under 25 act like children anyway these days. Maybe it's because they were all born when Bill Clinton was in office or later.

[Chris]

I have an Idea that I think will help the Democrats get a lot of support for an age limit on the Dreaded Assault Rifle.

We were told that they wanted to introduce a bill that would require a person to be 21, but it now appears that they want them to be 25 years. old.

The reason of course is because we have to stop the murder of these innocent Children. And I agree we must protect the innocent.

And it makes sense that at age 25 a person is more mature and has a better appreciation for the human life.

So if it makes sense with the assault rifle, Then I say we also make the Minimum age that one can receive an on demand abortion 25 years old. because if you think about it all of the same rules apply to saving innocent children.

This way the new law will save Zero Children in schools where shooters want to make a name for themselves, but over the years will save millions of children that would have been murdered in the womb.

Now that is Gun control that I can get behind.



25 years old is the average age people's brains reach maturity to make moral decisions. So that sounds reasonable.

Liberals, so ready to compromise natural rights, will never compromise government-granted rights like abortion.

[zelmo1234]

25 years old is the average age people's brains reach maturity to make moral decisions. So that sounds reasonable.

Liberals, so ready to compromise natural rights, will never compromise government-granted rights like abortion.

Well I guess that they really don't care about Children then do they???? :)

[MMC]

@Common thread points out the reality taking place. Even with a WAPO fact checker on Bernie.


In the week since the Florida school shooting, liberal politicians and journalists have been shamelessly pushing lies and misinformation (https://www.dailywire.com/news/27394/fake-news-cnns-chris-cuomo-pushes-false-story-ben-shapiro) to convince Americans that more stringent gun control is essential to protect the public. For the most part, these falsehoods tend to go uncorrected, as they are repeated so often and by so many people that it would be impossible for anyone trying to stay sane to find and counter each and every example......snip~


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/94821-WaPo-Fact-Checkers-Trash-Bernie-Sanders



There is no failure to communicate.....there is a whole group of people that are deliberately bringing dishonesty and falsehoods to the game. All in effort to achieve their political agenda.

[Crepitus]

So do you have to be a media outlet to have free speech?

Because if you can read and I am sure that you can, You will notice that is says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms.

The Supreme court has ruled on this several times.

But you are correct in order for the PEOPLE to remain well regulated, we should have the right to missile launchers, tanks, things like that. So we have given up some of our constitutional rights.

I wonder how many times we have to prove these Liberals wrong. actually that answer to this is every day because they are not honorable people and they are willing to lie to get what they desire.

That is the only explanation for the lack of the "well regulated militia" that I have ever heard that actually makes sense.


Damnit. Lol.

[AZ Jim]

My question. WHY DO YOU NEED A AR15 OR ANY SIMILAR WEAPON? Are you so chickenshit scared?

[Max Rockatansky]

My question. WHY DO YOU NEED A AR15 OR ANY SIMILAR WEAPON? Are you so chickenshit scared?
I don't need one. In fact I don't even have one. I prefer an AR-10 and a couple of AK-47s. Why do you need a computer? Can't write? Why do you need to any rights? Why do you need any of your enumerated rights?

Smart people realize that when We, the People push to having to prove a "need" to exercise Constitutional rights, we are on the path to eliminating all of those Constitutional rights.

[MisterVeritis]

My question. WHY DO YOU NEED A AR15 OR ANY SIMILAR WEAPON? Are you so chickenshit scared?
No. No, I am not. I have such weapons.

Yours is not to reason why.

[Tahuyaman]

My question. WHY DO YOU NEED A AR15 OR ANY SIMILAR WEAPON? Are you so chicken$#@! scared?


There are a lot of things people wish that purchase that you may think they don't need. If someone is a law abiding citizen, why should they be prevented from owning one? If you don't think you need one or don't want one, don't purchase one.

[Peter1469]

You have to be a Well-Regulated Militia to keep and bear Arms

http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1518975179/18_bbe1ud.png
The militia is the people.

[Common]

Age limit on buying rifles should be 18. You can join the marines and your taught how to kill and use a rifle before you are 18
You can be sent into combat anywhere in the world at 18 and you can vote in any election at 18.

I have no problem however with stronger background checks

[MisterVeritis]

Age limit on buying rifles should be 18. You can join the marines and your taught how to kill and use a rifle before you are 18
You can be sent into combat anywhere in the world at 18 and you can vote in any election at 18.
I have no problem however with stronger background checks
I suppose the devil will be found in the details.

[Peter1469]

If they took the deal, they would quickly renege on it. Their stated intentions can only be satisfied with a total ban.

I suggest no deals.


I have a compromise: I will surrender my AR15 and you can ban their sale and confiscate every one of them in the country and require me to get an annual certification that I'm not crazy or a felon to enable me to transfer a gun -- provided that the left agrees that that's the last thing that the left ever will ask for in terms of gun control from now until the end of time. You will have your universal background check, requiring that anybody that transfers a weapon show the ability to own a weapon and you'll have banned that evil ugly looking AR15 but that's it -- never ever ever from now until the end of time -- no more gun control measures ever.

Deal?

[Dr. Who]

Age limit on buying rifles should be 18. You can join the marines and your taught how to kill and use a rifle before you are 18
You can be sent into combat anywhere in the world at 18 and you can vote in any election at 18.

I have no problem however with stronger background checks
At 18 you are old enough to be under constant military supervision with a weapon and be killed, but not old enough to get drunk when the shooting is done.

[Max Rockatansky]

At 18 you are old enough to be under constant military supervision with a weapon and be killed, but not old enough to get drunk when the shooting is done.
Agreed. All ages should be the same for drinking, voting and owning firearms. My suggestion is 25, but will settle for 21.

[MisterVeritis]

Agreed. All ages should be the same for drinking, voting and owning firearms. My suggestion is 25, but will settle for 21.
Let's add the age of consent. And no joining the military before then.

[Max Rockatansky]

Let's add the age of consent. And no joining the military before then.
Agreed.

[nathanbforrest45]

18 is too young for drinking but 18 year olds think they are indestructible so make good candidates for the military.

[MMC]

Lets keep it simple for the leftness. Shall not Infringe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4UfAL9f74I