He will heal so, he can possibly kill someone the NEXT time he invades a home.

It would be cool if the law stated, instead of three strikes, life in prison, it would say, three strikes, off to the gallows.

so, because of that you bring in race?

YEP! I bring up the phenomena of how interesting it is that some are considered 'whiners'

when they take an interest in some topics ,,is seen as 'whining'

but others are given pats on the backs and hugs and love and basically have a chorus of cheerleaders when they take interest in other topics to the point of seeing their connection to EVERY THREAD,,,,

its humorously ironic actually,,,,


yep, that's what the second amendment is about 'regulated' ownersip,,,,

Oh,Ok. That splains it?

equally ignorant

not something I have seen expressed here or anywhere else
certainly not something I have espoused

Are you sure that's the reason?

nope,about a WELL TRAINED WELL ARMED CITIZEN's Militia!
Regulated doesn't mean Tightly controlled as it means today!
I really don't know why you are perpetuating that Untruth!


As a textual matter, the Second Amendment does speak of the idea of a well regulated militia, phrasing which seems to at least concede the idea that the government could assert the authority to assert some conditions upon gun ownership by individual citizens.



The term well-regulated, in the lexicon of the late 1700s, meant functioning properly, functioning as expected, not the dictionary definition we have today. Today, the term means tightly controlled, and is at odds with the shall not be infringed phrase found in the amendment. So no, textually the Second Amendment does NOT allow government to place conditions on gun ownership, as the Second Amendment is WITHOUT conditions in it's explicit prohibition.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13494-a-libertarian-case-for-manchintoomey


"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-- Janet Reno

the 'lexicon' of the 1700s also referred to totally different objects when it referred to 'arms'

and I doubt the hunters said,,,,' I went out today and BORE ARMS Against a bear'

bearing arms was a reference to MILITARY Action, not civilian fancy,,,


but with most things written or spoken in the English language, thee will always be opinions bout the 'real' meaning or the context,,,

Bull,not Bear!
and it still doesn't change one Iota on the Second Amendment,regardless how you Gungrabbers Twist and Shout!
A Firearm is a Firearm is a Firearm!
Have you ever owned one,or gone near one,or operated one?

and regulated is regulated is regulated,,, whatever that mean,,lol

I have never had a gun registered in my name, I have lived and shared quarters with others who did, I have had one pointed at me, I have held one that was not loaded and pulled the trigger

I have never shot bullets at anyone or anything


relevance?

Relevance?
What makes you such an Expert on Firearms?
Nope,the Regulated isn't Regulated!
Not in the intent of the Framers of the Amendment,since the Usage was completely different!

“As a textual matter, the Second Amendment does speak of the idea of a “well regulated” militia, phrasing which seems to at least concede the idea that the government could assert the authority to assert some conditions upon gun ownership by individual citizens.”

Wrong.

The term “well-regulated”, in the lexicon of the late 1700s, meant “functioning properly, functioning as expected”, not the dictionary definition we have today. Today, the term means “tightly controlled”, and is at odds with the “shall not be infringed” phrase found in the amendment. So no, textually the Second Amendment does NOT allow government to place conditions on gun ownership, as the Second Amendment is WITHOUT conditions in it’s explicit prohibition.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13494-a-libertarian-case-for-manchintoomey


It actually put's the Restriction on the Government,NOT on the Citizen!
Exactly the intent of the Framers!

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-- Janet Reno,Feinstein,Pelosi,Obama,Schumer,Bloomberg,Reid and sundry others!
Sounds familiar?

are we requiring people to be 'experts' on government to contribute an opinion bout them?

or an 'expert' on racism to contribute an opinion

or an 'expert' on urban life to contribute an opinion about it

o an 'expert' on poverty to contribute an opinion

lol

no, IM not an 'expert',

I doubt anyone here is a certified 'expert' on any topic, but I , like them, still have an opinion based on the information I do have,,

and being none of us were in the mind of the founding fathers

that means there is likewise no EXPERT here on what their INTENT was, so,, as I Said before


there will always be opinions and interpretations..