Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "1.2 Million People In 450 Locations March For Gun Reform" video.

You see the issue here. The media is parading these kids on this topic and if anyone hates them they get ridiculed because it is wrong to hate kids. The real people to blame are the media and political left. They are using these kids as human shields to push an agenda. However, these kids are accepting this position and they deserve criticism. Don't like it don't parade these kids around.
6
We do want to protect kids. You can do that while keeping your rights.
5
Ok, regulated militia, not regulated guns. What's your point?
5
Ok, let us break down the 2nd amendment. There are two sides here that cherry pick one point. The left cherry picks "well regulated" while ignoring the rest where the right cherry picks " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Now the political right is correct here but for the wrong reasons to a degree. So let us all bring it together. On part says "Militia". The Militia at the time were civilians who were not a part of an organized army. The colonies fought against the British army. They colonists were not an organized army but were militia and referred to, at times, as militia men. Now with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is clear. the right of the people just like in the 1st amendment with free speech and press where it says "or the right of the people ...." So with that at the very least the political left has to see the contradictory point of their argument if they say that "well regulated" means to regulate guns. So guns can be regulated but the right should not be infringed? But what is meant by "well regulated"? It means "trained" or "disciplined" or "control". That means a lot. The idea behind this is that allowing people to own guns allows them to be trained in them and control them. That is an uprising of the people were to happen they would be prepared and form a militia that is "well regulated" as they are trained due to the fact they own guns. This idea that "well regulated" meant to "regulated guns" is 100% false. It can be argued to regulate a militia, but then one has to realize that the whole Constitution was designed to limit government, especially the federal government. And that there were to be no standing army. So why would they place this in here? In all, people who point to "well regulated" are simply cherry picking and ignoring not only the entire 2nd amendment, but the entire constitution in itself.
4
1.2 million people who have no idea about guns and gun policy and guns statistics decided to waste their time.
3
Jeremy, such an intelligent comment. Man, it really makes me rethink my life.
3
The NRA does not corrupt anyone.
2
ToneyCrimson, that is the case though. If you want to protect people than take away the 4th amendment. That is my suggestion.
2
Australia is a poor example. Prior to the gun buy back program gun crime was already dropping. Australia has a much different culture which is why they have a lower crime rate. Guns have nothing to do with that.
2
daroe23, I don't fear these kids as they do not want to have a civil discussion. The vast majority are going to ignore them and nothing will get done. When you have Hogg calling politicians "the bitch" of the NRA you can't take that person seriously. That shuts most people down. How about David Hogg stops being a bitch for CNN? It goes both ways at that point. However, if I were to say that he would cry, I know it. At this point all you can do is point and ridicule at the stupidity and move on knowing they will accomplish nothing.
2
Vulcano, we have many guns laws on the books and gun crime is dropping already. The issue is that "gun reform" only becomes an issue after a rare shooting like in Parkland to where people use kids as human shields to push a political agenda. If you look at the reforms being suggest like me ask you this. Say you ban the AR 15 and expanded magazines and another mass shooting happens? The VA Tech shooter had 2 pistols with a 10 round magazine and a 15 round one and killed 30 people. So you ban the AR 15 and expanded magazines and another mass shooting happens. Then what? What is your approach now? More gun laws? That is the issue. Where is your stopping point on these gun laws?
1
Vulcano, these shootings are rare. As John Lott showed other countries have higher rates of mass shootings. You did not address my my argument. If you pass gun reform and ban the AR 15 and another mass shooting happens with a gun that is not an AR 15 what is the solution? You don't have one.
1
Bankruptcy takes a long time. This had nothing to do with it.
1
Jack Ban, i don't care about big money in politics on either side.
1
0x1A3C3E7, I agree. My point is that if people want to remove rights in the name of safety they should start with the 4th. Spying on people will see their intentions.
1
saphired02, define "sensible gun reform". To many that means taking away guns.
1
Define "sensible and reasonable". There in lines the problem.
1
David Hogg is an idiot.
1
Define "common sense reform".
1
Tayvin4042, it says the right of the people. The militia was to be regulated meaning being controlled. That is done by allowing people to own guns.
1
The Sparkle Zone, look at David's definition of a militia
1
The Sparkle Zone, militia in the colonies at that time were far from organized.
1
"Wrong. There's one side: reasonable regulation. " Define "reasonable regulation"? That is incredibly vague to where I can say the regulations we have now are 100% reasonable. As for no argument, one exists. You see that here in the comment section and this went to the SC with a 5-4 decision in DC vs Heller. So at the very least there is an argument. But the idea that "well regulated" means regulating guns is 100% false. Now if you want to talk about state militia and regulating state militias then you haven an argument. But it was nothing about regulating guns.
1
Leinja, most of the time I have a legit point, people just strongly disagree with me. No, I am not a libertarian. I support some of their ideas, but I am not a libertarian. I support the Constitution and the design of it and the country. The Constitution gave a layout on the purpose of the federal government and what it is allowed to do. Anything else was left up to the states. And all governments are restricted by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights were there to give the people the ability to control government. I can go into detail if you want which will be long, but in short the design of the country was this. The federal government serves the states which is why nothing at the federal level is determined by a majority. That is why the states were taxed originally and not individuals. It serves the states and states make up the federal government. This is why I opposed federally ran healthcare, welfare, education, etc. State and local governments serve the people. I actually lean left on a lot of issues such as healthcare, welfare, taxes, etc. I just want those programs to be ran at the state and local level. There are many reasons why but as a whole that is what I support.
1
"And you're ignoring the entire amendment to interpret two clauses independent of each other when they are actually supposed to be read in conjunction." I am not. The amendment does not have two independent clauses, it functions as one. "The second is not well written as "people" is left without any identification as to who it is supposed to be. People IN THE MILITIA is who is supposed to receive the "right to keep and bear arms."" The people made up the militia. Ever heard of "militiamen"? I doubt it at this point. They are non-professional soldier who can be called upon for military services. Look it up in Wikipedia. "If you insert a simple prepositional phrase....." Rewarding the amendment does not make you correct. Read the Constitution, they say "the people" in the first amendment meaning the people. If they meant people in the militia as you say they would have worded it as "the right of the people in the militia.....". Where's my proof? Well let us start at the beginning of the Constitution. Article I Section 3 "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote." They say "each Senator" to clearly say who. They don't say "they" or "the people" making the assumption that one should know they are talking about the Senator. Now they do say "they" later in "The Senate shall have.....they shall be on oath....." That is OK as they are talking about the Senators and only the senators. Now you may say that makes you correct. But on the point of "the people", that is clearly defined in the 1st amendment. So if they were to talk about the militia as you feel the wording would have said "they" as in members of the militia. Instead they used "the people" to show they mean all the people. You really need to study the Constitution, it is very interesting.
1
G Kaiser. That's regulating the people. Nice try.
1
The UltimateBeing01, not to be rude but this is one of your weaker arguments. You literally had to reword the amendment to fit your narrative when I am giving you what is written in the Constitution word for word and breaking it down. "Good point, buddy. And you also fail to realize that argument can be used against you. Couldn't they have said "People" in the Second if they meant to give ALL AMERICANS gun rights?" It does say "the people". That's my point. "What sense does it make to specify a certain group of Americans, the "militia," if EVERYONE was meant to have the right of ownership and usage of guns?" Because the idea was for "the people" to form a militia like they did during the Revolutionary war. Ever heard of the "minutemen"? They were a militia that were independently formed. "The writers were meaning to give everyone unlimited gun rights, yet ONLY speaks of militias?" No, it clearly says "the people". The idea was so they can form a militia if needed like the minutemen did. "You mean to tell me the writers didn't realize they could have worded it like this if they meant to give everyone a gun? " They listed the reasoning for the 2nd amendment, it is allow the people to form a militia just as they did with the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." They allowed for freedom of speech, press and assembly so the people can "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." They listed the right for the people and a reasoning behind it. Another example is the 4th amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." They list what the government cannot do, in this case no illegal search. The reasoning was so "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"
1
TheUltimateBeing01, you are not doing well here. I am giving you numerous examples in the Constitution. I don't have to reword a single thing. You, however, do. I would love to see your reasoning on this one now. In other amendments they clearly say "the people" meaning all. Why would the meaning of "the people" change in the 2nd amendment?
1
"Because not wanting to get shot and killed is an "evil liberal agenda to take away our guns."" I don't want to get shot and killed either. I realize the best way to defend myself from a person with a gun is by me having a gun as well.
1
"I have no problem saying I want the second amendment nullified. I have it pinned on my Twitter account. It was meant to preserve slavery through state militias (the police force of that day)." That is 100% false. If it were meant to preserve slavery then why is it in the Constitution to where individuals in many non-slave states had that right?
1
"The founders....if they were gauged on today's political spectrum definitions would be right wing. Not left wing. Many of them were genocide instigators. And they were slave owners. Despite the public portrayal of those cretins they were not liberal and did not embrace freedom or individual dignity. Otherwise they wouldn't be slave owners." That is also false. Look at the left wing today. They do not support freedom or equality. I can give you many examples if you want.
1
"Something else to consider: we don't have state militias anymore!" So? We have the internet now. Does that make the 1st amendment irrelevant? Also, militia in that time were minutemen. They were not organized but could become organized when the time came. That was a major point of the 2nd amendment, to give the people the ability to organize and rally for freedom. " Clearly the very wording of the second betrays the intent of the writers: they did not want to give gun rights to any American citizen" Then why did they say "the people" like they did in other amendments? "They reserved this power of delegating gun rights to the states, with the express purpose of allowing state governments to legislate gun possession and usage laws for militias. Strictly militias." Then why did they say "the people"? And if it were for the states, why didn't they say "the states" as they did in the 10th amendment. You are making it sound like the founding fathers were careless in their wording and meant to say "the people of the militia" or "the state militia" and simply made a typo in the 2nd amendment. " "The Congress shall have power To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" Yes, laws of the union as in federal laws, insurrections which is to prevent tyranny, and invasion which is foreign invasion. What's your point? On the second part, that is to provide an army for foreign invasion. This does not contradict the 2nd amendment at all which says "the people". The people were to have the ability to rise up and defend themselves to protect the state.
1
"What you guys don't understand is that these amendments had intents behind it that are not congruent to a modern America. " Why not? They basic idea was to give freedom and liberty to defend themselves whether it be against invaders, other citizens, or the government itself. The 1st amendment was there for people to criticize the government. The 2nd is there to violently overthrow them if needed. The 4th is there to prevent government from searching your property. They idea of limiting government is never old. One should always support that. Yes, over time laws can change. But does that mean every law should change? Murder has been illegal for centuries, should we change that? You can't just say "it was written in a different time" as an argument. Yes, to a degree that is true. But there is more to it. In this case the idea is to limit government. Yes, guns are different today, and so is society. But gun murders are dropping and have been for decades. So yes, while gun rights were written in a different time, as we can see by the stats guns are not an issue. "The ratifiers had no knowledge of today's weapons or our expansive military. Nor did they predict the gun crimes that would be allowed by the second amendment's deliberate misinterpretation by gun lobbies, like you guys are doing in this very thread. " The internet did not exist as well, so should we remove the 1st amendment? Also, as I said, gun crimes are dropping and have for decades. If gun violence was on a rise then yes, I would say we should consider some major changes with the 2nd amendment being one of them. But that isn't the case. Also, there is the point of should we be removing rights for "safety"? If you want to do that then how about we remove the 4th amendment. I can make a strong argument that more of these mass shootings would not have happened is we allowed the government to randomly search our homes. The movie theater shooting would not have happened as police would have found the homemade bombs. Parkland would not have happened as the police would have had a much larger profile on Cruz. We have had situation of kidnappings that can be solved by removing the 4th amendment. Why not remove that?
1
TheUltimateBeing01, do you support removing the 4th amendment for safety?
1
XHALE303, while I feel that the 4th amendment has been violated, it is not major that will cause for a violent revolution.
1