Day after San Bernadino Shootings, Senate Votes to let Suspected Terrorists, Mentally Ill Buy Guns

Please learn to read. In no ways does it imply that you have to be part of a militia. It does not say that militia members have that right it says the PEOPLE have that right.

 

you're wrong, and if the government tried to do this, there would be a civil war

 

Who would the "patriots" be fighting? I'd imagine something north of 90% of the US military would be on their side.

 

The NRA lobby, in so far as its ability to rally the people on its side, pretty much is the people. It is one corporate lobby that manages to have quite a loyal following amongst and much influence over nice bit of one party's base.

 

Yes, because suspected terrorists can't fly due to public safety concerns but must be able to buy gun because Constitution. Our founding Fathers must be big time idiots.

 

the former is not a constitutional right

 

Certain laws exist in the interest of public safety that take away rights. You cannot buy a gun if you are 20. Are 20 year olds getting their rights violated without even committing any crimes?

 

Yes... The PEOPLE if in a well regulated militia shall not have their rights to bare arms infringed.

 

Like I said, our founding father must be idiots.

 

Yeah each individual by his/her self only became a "well regulated militia" a couple of years ago when declared by the GOP S. Ct. selected by a Congress afraid of the Gun MFG/NRA lobby.

Doncha know?

 

Well the San Bernadino wife became radicalized in Saudi Arabia the home of the 9/11 attackers so we invaded Iraq. With similar logic due to San Bernandino we can continue overthrowing Assad the main force actually fighting ISIS on the ground. Lybya would have been another potential logic but it has already degenerated into a failed state. Iran is too tough and sadly as the neo-cons have said only "real men" want to take out Iran.

Better Syria. We can always revive the old sarin gas stockpile claim (maybe add a few allegations of mobile weapons labs ala last propaganda buildup)to scare folks that Syria threatens the United States. A shame that Syria can no longer serve as a place for us to send folks to be renditioned and tortured till we liberate them. We should quit pretending that the few "moderate rebels" lol will do the work and send volunteers like Bobbie, Treeman and others to finish off Assad and occupy Syria, but this time for a couple of generations to prove we are not weak mindedness as Bobbie detests.

Hey with any luck we can turn the impoverished widow women in Syria after the final destruction of the regime, demolished economy, and prolonged guerilla warfare post shock and awe to comfort woman working in safe regulated brothels instead of just the unregulated unprotected sex workers they would otherwise descend to.

 

It should be noted here that Republican Majority Whip Cornyn (from Texas) also put a gun-control amendment to vote on Thursday, as well. And a second Republican put even another one to vote.

So, Feinstein's was not the only one. And btw, here legislation mirrored gun-control legislationi proposed by two Republicans after Sandy Hook.

Since the amendments on Thursday needed 60 votes to pass, there wasn't much chance of that happening. The politicians, both Rep and Dem, are however continuing to put this in front of the American people. That's standard methods to eventually get controversial change passed.

 

The military is mostly conservative and I also think there'd be a civil war.

The differences between liberal and con may indeed be physiological. Blue/Red, urban/rural...all natural in any society filled with choice.n

Playing it as a battle between Angels and Demons with every ******* wedge issue is when we all start to lose nice things.

 

Very unlikely. Maybe some white folks would care, but most people wouldn't. Look at the voter turnout. As long as people can get their McDonalds and Walmart and TV they are good.

 

It's sad that we have people trying to argue against the 2nd amendment being an individual right well after the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd amendment was describing an individual right. I mean, even if you aren't smart enough to understand what the words mean, they spelled it out for you not that long ago. I guess the anti-civil liberties people will stop at nothing to try and strip power from the people.

 

The Supreme Court is infallible. It's irrational to have an opinion that is dissenting to the Supreme Court. Therefore, black people are property. Any opinion that disagrees with that statement is irrational.

Dredd Scott needs to slap you across the face.

 

Less likely with a good economy, not sure what would happen once you start forcing people to hand over their guns, doorstep by doorstep.

Harder to tell with poorer countrysides.

 

Something tells me that if the Supreme Court reversed their previous decision (which can happen) to restrict the 2nd amendment you would not be defending their right to do so.

 

If they decided that the right to free speech wasn't an individual right and that only those in Congress had that right I'd be against it too. I'm not sure what your point is. I'd be against any bastardization of the constitution.

 

"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."

Please learn to read. Your twist on this is that the first half of the sentence doesn't exist. It does. It's right there. Read it.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to he security of a free state.

What was a well regulated militia in 1775? What is one in 2015? Amongst our many million gun owners, how many are in one?