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

[zelmo1234]

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

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

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) 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] (As mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment, 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.


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, 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, 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) .....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) 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] (As mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment, 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.


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, 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, 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) .....snip~


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

You 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?