Discussion:
My Turn: ‘Monitor’ gets it wrong on gun control
(too old to reply)
MattB
2014-10-12 18:41:19 UTC
Permalink
My Turn: ‘Monitor’ gets it wrong on gun control

By MICHAEL E. HAMMOND
For the Monitor
Sunday, October 12, 2014

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/13879006-95/my-turn-monitor-gets-it-wrong-on-gun-control

Anti-gun liberals are seldom persuaded by logic. So it’s hard to
believe that responding to the Oct. 3 Monitor editorial is not a waste
of time. But gun owners take offense to the Monitor’s childish
name-calling, branding the Second Amendment community as engaging in
“absolutism” – and brandishing the old “fire in a crowded theater”
trope.

First of all, the “spate of mass shootings” the Monitor worries about
is a myth. Not only are they on the decline, one is more likely to die
by fire, bicycles or falls. And many of the states that have witnessed
these “mass shootings” are places like Connecticut, California,
Illinois and New York. These states had the gun bans, magazine bans
and background checks that the Monitor craves. And that was,
tragically, not enough.

On the point of concealed carry permits, these states started with the
proposition that Americans needed to get the government’s permission
to carry a firearm, and the end-result was that the government stopped
giving its permission.

Vermont, on the other hand – which is not that unlike New Hampshire –
doesn’t require any permit to carry a firearm. And how many people, as
a result, would feel less safe in any place in Vermont than they would
in Watts, Chicago, New York or Hartford?

As a result, Gun Owners of America will make it a chief priority in
New Hampshire in 2015 to adopt a New Hampshire “constitutional carry”
statute similar to Vermont’s, and to reject the anti-gun hysteria of
states like New York and California.

When you think about it, gun control is one of the few areas where
there is an almost psychotic will to adopt the policies of failure. It
is like trying to crib test answers from the class dummy.

In fact, the one thing that all rabidly anti-gun places like
Baltimore, Chicago and Washington, D.C., have in common is that they
all have high murder rates.

Now, with respect to the accusation that the Second Amendment
community consists of “absolutists” – would that that were true.

Since 1968, Congress has passed one anti-gun bill after another –
moving from the Gun Control Act, to the ban on plastic guns, to the
ban on new automatics, to the ban on “armor piercing bullets,” to the
ban on semi-automatics and the Brady Law, to the veterans gun ban and
bans in school zones.

In most cases, the bogeyman NRA supported these bills. And in all
cases, the restrictions on freedom proved to be ineffectual political
exercises that, in retrospect, were nothing but platforms to the next
gun control demands.

“No one is going to take away guns or deny permits to law-abiding
citizens,” says the Monitor. But that’s exactly what’s happening in
those parts of the country where gun owners failed to resist the
creeping incursion of the anti-gun lobby. No one has any doubt that
New Hampshire Democrats are planning for the day when New Hampshire is
sufficiently “blue” to join them.

Commment

William
No surprise Michael. Most gun crime happens in the inner city areas
like Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans and Washington DC. All areas where
they have some of the strictest gun laws. The Monitor is a progressive
organization, the editors are ordinary people with an opinion. The
difference is that they have the bully pulpit and they use it to
spread their disinformation.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-10-12 20:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Anti-gun liberals are seldom persuaded by logic. So it’s hard to
believe that responding to the Oct. 3 Monitor editorial is not a waste
of time. But gun owners take offense to the Monitor’s childish
name-calling, branding the Second Amendment community as engaging in
“absolutism” – and brandishing the old “fire in a crowded theater”
trope.
Pro-gun-loons engage in false claims

The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with owning/using a personal
weapon.

It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
comprise those militias

The INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment (much later) began to "read"
the 2nd differently---and recently went off the deep end by
"legislating from the bench" when it assigned and expanded the
interpretation to such a stupid degree.

Keeping in mind that conservatives HATE the idea of non-originalist
reading(s)
Steve from Colorado
2014-10-12 22:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Anti-gun liberals are seldom persuaded by logic. So it’s hard to
believe that responding to the Oct. 3 Monitor editorial is not a waste
of time. But gun owners take offense to the Monitor’s childish
name-calling, branding the Second Amendment community as engaging in
“absolutism” – and brandishing the old “fire in a crowded theater”
trope.
Pro-gun-loons engage in false claims
The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with owning/using a personal
weapon.
It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
comprise those militias
The INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment (much later) began to "read"
the 2nd differently---and recently went off the deep end by
"legislating from the bench" when it assigned and expanded the
interpretation to such a stupid degree.
Keeping in mind that conservatives HATE the idea of non-originalist
reading(s)
The fact of the matter is that Americans have had guns in their homes
ever since the Revolution. A long tradition of liberty in our country
includes the right of the people to bear arms. We're like Israel or
Switzerland where the people all serve as militia and keep guns in their
homes. Some swishy guy paid by Mayor Bloomberg to try and sway public
opinion can't change tradition and history. He who controls the past
controls the future.
--
Meet the new bogeyman. Same as the old bogeyman.

http://www.globalgulag.us
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-10-13 03:36:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 16:20:58 -0600, Steve from Colorado
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Anti-gun liberals are seldom persuaded by logic. So it’s hard to
believe that responding to the Oct. 3 Monitor editorial is not a waste
of time. But gun owners take offense to the Monitor’s childish
name-calling, branding the Second Amendment community as engaging in
“absolutism” – and brandishing the old “fire in a crowded theater”
trope.
Pro-gun-loons engage in false claims
The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with owning/using a personal
weapon.
It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
comprise those militias
The INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment (much later) began to "read"
the 2nd differently---and recently went off the deep end by
"legislating from the bench" when it assigned and expanded the
interpretation to such a stupid degree.
Keeping in mind that conservatives HATE the idea of non-originalist
reading(s)
The fact of the matter is that Americans have had guns in their homes
ever since the Revolution.
Exactly true. So there was no such fear that prompted any amendment
related to ownership of a gun
Post by Steve from Colorado
A long tradition of liberty in our country
includes the right of the people to bear arms.
"bearing armss" is NOT the same as "owning a gun". The ORIGINAL
INTENT of the issue was "bearing arms"----was in a military (or
militia) sense that was granted because of the original constitution
wording only gave that power to the federal government.
Post by Steve from Colorado
We're like Israel or
Switzerland where the people all serve as militia and keep guns in their
homes.
The problem WE had was solved later when the central government
inplemented a standing army---relieving states of having to defend
themselves. We don't have militias doing what the federal military
does.

So---the "ORIGINAL INTENT" of the 2nd amendment had been mute---for
decades---until the issue of technological advances produced weaponry
that made civilians capable of military type capabilities. Thats when
regulating guns became necessary.

The last 50 years has been a nightmare of gunloon
proliferation---which was encouraged by idiots like the Nazi Rifle
asses---and the idiot USSC which forgot that "original intent" was the
foundation of conservatives (and the federalist society assholes of
the right)
Post by Steve from Colorado
Some swishy guy paid by Mayor Bloomberg to try and sway public
opinion can't change tradition and history. He who controls the past
controls the future.
There is NO history of civilians needing military weaponry. There is
no history of "guns" being in danger of being taken away.
(historically). The "Fears" gun loons have is pure bullshit
propaganda---designed to sell more guns.

You are referring to eras of expansion far beyond normal government
(city/state) ability to deal with populations on the move. (westward
expansion). Cities which were established and thrived from earliest
times were governed by formal police and law institutions---the "west"
was not. But even when those "Western" towns were established---Gun
control was one of the first things they implemented. (else why would
all those john wayne movies portray removing guns when in town?)

But that doesn't give the reading of the 2nd any more crediblity the
way it's being interpreted today.
Steve from Colorado
2014-10-14 23:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 16:20:58 -0600, Steve from Colorado
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Anti-gun liberals are seldom persuaded by logic. So it’s hard to
believe that responding to the Oct. 3 Monitor editorial is not a waste
of time. But gun owners take offense to the Monitor’s childish
name-calling, branding the Second Amendment community as engaging in
“absolutism” – and brandishing the old “fire in a crowded theater”
trope.
Pro-gun-loons engage in false claims
The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with owning/using a personal
weapon.
It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
comprise those militias
The INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment (much later) began to "read"
the 2nd differently---and recently went off the deep end by
"legislating from the bench" when it assigned and expanded the
interpretation to such a stupid degree.
Keeping in mind that conservatives HATE the idea of non-originalist
reading(s)
The fact of the matter is that Americans have had guns in their homes
ever since the Revolution.
Exactly true. So there was no such fear that prompted any amendment
related to ownership of a gun
Post by Steve from Colorado
A long tradition of liberty in our country
includes the right of the people to bear arms.
"bearing armss" is NOT the same as "owning a gun".
As they say, possession is 90 percent of the law. A gun in hand is, for
all practical purposes, owning a gun.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The ORIGINAL
INTENT of the issue was "bearing arms"----was in a military (or
militia) sense that was granted because of the original constitution
wording only gave that power to the federal government.
Why would a government need to give itself permission to bear arms.
Clearly the protection would be there to ensure that the people
themselves could bear, own, possess, use guns for their own protection
against animals or people who meant to do them harm.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Steve from Colorado
We're like Israel or
Switzerland where the people all serve as militia and keep guns in their
homes.
The problem WE had was solved later when the central government
inplemented a standing army---relieving states of having to defend
themselves. We don't have militias doing what the federal military
does.
So---the "ORIGINAL INTENT" of the 2nd amendment had been mute---for
decades---until the issue of technological advances produced weaponry
that made civilians capable of military type capabilities. Thats when
regulating guns became necessary.
The last 50 years has been a nightmare of gunloon
proliferation---which was encouraged by idiots like the Nazi Rifle
asses---and the idiot USSC which forgot that "original intent" was the
foundation of conservatives (and the federalist society assholes of
the right)
You were the first to mention Nazis, so you ended the discussion. It
was Americans who had learned to shoot rifles as kids growing up in Dust
Bowl - Depression era America who fought Hitler's Third Reich. Owning a
firearm and learning to use it safely through membership in
organizations like the NRA doesn't make that person a "gunloon" or
"Nazi." If it did, then Americans would have fought on the side of
Germany in the Second World War.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Steve from Colorado
Some swishy guy paid by Mayor Bloomberg to try and sway public
opinion can't change tradition and history. He who controls the past
controls the future.
There is NO history of civilians needing military weaponry. There is
no history of "guns" being in danger of being taken away.
(historically). The "Fears" gun loons (sic) have is pure bullshit
propaganda---designed to sell more guns.
Fears are a common trait of humans throughout history. Only a
lobotomized, drooling, idiot would have no fears in the world we live in.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You are referring to eras of expansion far beyond normal government
(city/state) ability to deal with populations on the move. (westward
expansion). Cities which were established and thrived from earliest
times were governed by formal police and law institutions---the "west"
was not. But even when those "Western" towns were established---Gun
control was one of the first things they implemented. (else why would
all those john wayne movies portray removing guns when in town?)
But that doesn't give the reading of the 2nd any more crediblity the
way it's being interpreted today.
I fear that corrupt, dishonest, activist judges will interpret the
Second Amendment in a way to disarm the European-American demographic to
ensure the invasion of Sandinista "Children" from Central America can
continue unopposed while they spread disease and turn the USA into a
Third World replica of El Salvador and Nicaragua. I seem to recall that
Red China has "demanded" that their puppets in Washington find a way to
disarm Americans so there is no resistance to China's buying up of huge
chunks of America.
--
Meet the new bogeyman, same as the old bogeyman.

Global Gulag

http://globalgulag.us
Klaus Schadenfreude
2014-10-13 12:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Anti-gun liberals are seldom persuaded by logic. So it’s hard to
believe that responding to the Oct. 3 Monitor editorial is not a waste
of time. But gun owners take offense to the Monitor’s childish
name-calling, branding the Second Amendment community as engaging in
“absolutism” – and brandishing the old “fire in a crowded theater”
trope.
Pro-gun-loons engage in false claims
The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with owning/using a personal
weapon.
Um, yeah, Gary, it does. It was in all the papers.

" In the words of Justice Scalia's majority opinion, the Second
Amendment guarantees "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens
to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
-Dennis Henigan, Brady Campaign to Outlaw Guns


"There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment
guarantees Americans ' individual right to possess and carry weapons
in case of confrontation."
- Elena Kagan, who- according to Lee Harrison,
could have only arrived at this conclusion
by being bribed by the NRA.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution
that gave
the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
comprise those militias
No. Not even close. If it was for that, it would have said so. It
doesn't. Anywhere.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment (much later) began to "read"
the 2nd differently---and recently went off the deep end by
"legislating from the bench" when it assigned and expanded the
interpretation to such a stupid degree.
Keeping in mind that conservatives HATE the idea of non-originalist
reading(s)
Keep in mind that sick and twisted fucks like Gary will continue to
cling to their TV-GUIDE-inspired interpretations of what they hoped
the 2A might mean if only Democrats could run things forever.
Stormin Mormon
2014-10-13 13:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with owning/using a personal
weapon.
Um, yeah, Gary, it does. It was in all the papers.
" In the words of Justice Scalia's majority opinion, the Second
Amendment guarantees "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens
to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
-Dennis Henigan, Brady Campaign to Outlaw Guns
Might be splitting hairs, but the 2nd is a
limit on the power of government.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2014-10-13 13:39:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:28:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Post by Stormin Mormon
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with owning/using a personal
weapon.
Um, yeah, Gary, it does. It was in all the papers.
" In the words of Justice Scalia's majority opinion, the Second
Amendment guarantees "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens
to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
-Dennis Henigan, Brady Campaign to Outlaw Guns
Might be splitting hairs, but the 2nd is a
limit on the power of government.
It's way too complex an issue for Gary, that much is certain.

Here is his confused, beery explanation....

:It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
:the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
:hands of the state(s).

Old Milwaukee always goes on sale in South Dakota the same time Gary
posts his personal theories on the Second Amendment.

Coincidence?

I think not.
Wayne
2014-10-14 23:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Anti-gun liberals are seldom persuaded by logic. So it’s hard to
believe that responding to the Oct. 3 Monitor editorial is not a waste
of time. But gun owners take offense to the Monitor’s childish
name-calling, branding the Second Amendment community as engaging in
“absolutism” – and brandishing the old “fire in a crowded theater”
trope.
# Pro-gun-loons engage in false claims

# The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with owning/using a personal
# weapon.

Correct. You have the right, as a natural right to own a gun. The 2nd says
that the gummint can't stop you from doing that.

# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
# the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
# hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
# comprise those militias

Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public and
subjugating the general public.

And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
MattB
2014-10-15 17:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Anti-gun liberals are seldom persuaded by logic. So it’s hard to
believe that responding to the Oct. 3 Monitor editorial is not a waste
of time. But gun owners take offense to the Monitor’s childish
name-calling, branding the Second Amendment community as engaging in
“absolutism” – and brandishing the old “fire in a crowded theater”
trope.
# Pro-gun-loons engage in false claims
# The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with owning/using a personal
# weapon.
Correct. You have the right, as a natural right to own a gun. The 2nd says
that the gummint can't stop you from doing that.
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
# the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
# hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
# comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public and
subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.

I wonder of Initiative 594 will pass the Supreme court test

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Initiatives/Initiatives/INITIATIVE%20594.pdf


After reading it somehow I doubt it.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-10-15 20:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
# the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
# hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
# comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public and
subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
"subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.

READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.

The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
to the federal government.

The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.

The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.

THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
harmless for being part.

There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
amendment
MattB
2014-10-15 21:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
# the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
# hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
# comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public and
subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
"subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
The Supreme court has said what it means. They are the ones that get
to say.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
to the federal government.
The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
harmless for being part.
There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
amendment
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-10-16 04:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
"subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
The Supreme court has said what it means. They are the ones that get
to say.
However---YOUR side demands that they (USSC) interpret it as intended,
or originalist. The 4 worst conservatives appointed by idiot
republicans---all have adopted that philosophy---of the federalist
society.

Don't you know that?
Post by MattB
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
to the federal government.
MattB
2014-10-16 09:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
"subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
The Supreme court has said what it means. They are the ones that get
to say.
However---YOUR side demands that they (USSC) interpret it as intended,
or originalist. The 4 worst conservatives appointed by idiot
republicans---all have adopted that philosophy---of the federalist
society.
Don't you know that?
I know what they say and that is all that matters nothing you can do
about it.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
to the federal government.
Wayne
2014-10-16 00:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
# the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
# hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
# comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public and
subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.

# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.

# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
# to the federal government.

# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.

# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.

# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
# harmless for being part.

# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment

Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.

As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th grade
civics class and fully and correctly understood it.

Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie version of
the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-10-16 04:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
# the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
# hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
# comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public and
subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
# to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
# harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
How so? The wording of the Constitution was very clear---in debating
the constitution..and today.
Post by Wayne
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th grade
civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
What miltary was in place to protect the new formed "states" from
enemies?

There was no standing army--and the constitution did not give the
states (originally) the power written into the constitution (Very
clearly STILL in the document).
Post by Wayne
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie version of
the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Somehow---whatever you read "in the 7th grade" was fed to you by some
knuckle-dragging idiot.

The 2nd amendment was placed in the BOR prior to ratification---so
STATES (and the citizens who had to be used) would not be illegally
acting if they had to repel any enemy (of the time)

It is true---the 2nd has now been expanded to "read" an altogether
different meaning----and that is another indictment of conservatives
(federalist society scum) who constantly cite rulings as near-treason
because the justices do not interpret in an "originalist" manner

WHACK !
Wayne
2014-10-16 16:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
# the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
# hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
# comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public and
subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
# to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
# harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
# How so? The wording of the Constitution was very clear---in debating
# the constitution..and today.

The debating is only by dumbasses who won't accept the obvious meaning.
The first clause in no way limits the second clause.
Post by Wayne
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th grade
civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
# What miltary was in place to protect the new formed "states" from
# enemies?

# There was no standing army--and the constitution did not give the
# states (originally) the power written into the constitution (Very
# clearly STILL in the document).

That's irrelevant to an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Post by Wayne
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie version of
the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
# Somehow---whatever you read "in the 7th grade" was fed to you by some
# knuckle-dragging idiot.

# The 2nd amendment was placed in the BOR prior to ratification---so
# STATES (and the citizens who had to be used) would not be illegally
# acting if they had to repel any enemy (of the time)

Not to repel any enemy "of the time", but of any time.
That includes proggies who want to do away with the constitution.
Gunner Asch
2014-10-18 06:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
# the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
# hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
# comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public and
subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
# to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
# harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th grade
civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie version of
the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National Guard
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789

Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.

He really...really needs to read this

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm



Gunner, home from HellA


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-10-18 15:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
# to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
# harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th grade
civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie version of
the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (
Once again--because you seem so fucking dense(er)

a) the ORIGINAL text disallowed states and citizens military
operations. To head off problem---2nd amendment ratified. original
test had NOTHING to do with "right to have a weapon"

b) the entire scream of the rightwing idiots (you)---is that
"interpretation" (which you stupidly count on)---is NOT the
conservative "literalist" or "original reading" that the 4-5
conservative justices believe is correct. AND, most of the
conservative political demographic in america is screaming and
"outraged" when a 'ruling" that is NOT "literal" is handed down

c) I did not argue laws related to the 2nd were "illegal"---I'm
whacking your dumb ass for the HYPOCRISY of accepting a
"unoriginalist" decision when you assholes are screaming that
interpretation is ONLY correct "as the founders wrote it"

You're a fake from your plastic gun, to your wal-mart camouflage, to
your gay-boy ads on Craigs list, GUMMER
Wayne
2014-10-18 16:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
# to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
# harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th grade
civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie version of
the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (
Once again--because you seem so fucking dense(er)

a) the ORIGINAL text disallowed states and citizens military
operations. To head off problem---2nd amendment ratified. original
test had NOTHING to do with "right to have a weapon"

b) the entire scream of the rightwing idiots (you)---is that
"interpretation" (which you stupidly count on)---is NOT the
conservative "literalist" or "original reading" that the 4-5
conservative justices believe is correct. AND, most of the
conservative political demographic in america is screaming and
"outraged" when a 'ruling" that is NOT "literal" is handed down

c) I did not argue laws related to the 2nd were "illegal"---I'm
whacking your dumb ass for the HYPOCRISY of accepting a
"unoriginalist" decision when you assholes are screaming that
interpretation is ONLY correct "as the founders wrote it"

You're a fake from your plastic gun, to your wal-mart camouflage, to
your gay-boy ads on Craigs list, GUMMER

#################
It's actually humorous to see a proggie explain such a simple statement: "
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

As I mentioned before, even a seventh grader understands those 14 words
perfectly. But not Yoorghis.
Gunner Asch
2014-10-18 19:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
# to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
# harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th grade
civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie version of
the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (
Once again--because you seem so fucking dense(er)
a) the ORIGINAL text disallowed states and citizens military
operations. To head off problem---2nd amendment ratified. original
test had NOTHING to do with "right to have a weapon"
b) the entire scream of the rightwing idiots (you)---is that
"interpretation" (which you stupidly count on)---is NOT the
conservative "literalist" or "original reading" that the 4-5
conservative justices believe is correct. AND, most of the
conservative political demographic in america is screaming and
"outraged" when a 'ruling" that is NOT "literal" is handed down
c) I did not argue laws related to the 2nd were "illegal"---I'm
whacking your dumb ass for the HYPOCRISY of accepting a
"unoriginalist" decision when you assholes are screaming that
interpretation is ONLY correct "as the founders wrote it"
You're a fake from your plastic gun, to your wal-mart camouflage, to
your gay-boy ads on Craigs list, GUMMER
#################
It's actually humorous to see a proggie explain such a simple statement: "
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
As I mentioned before, even a seventh grader understands those 14 words
perfectly. But not Yoorghis.
Yogi is mentally ill..shrug..just another shining example of the
people the hard Left pays pennies to post on Usenet.

If he was worth a shit, he would be involved in local or state
politics as a protester.

Its also fascinating to note he screams out his false, fraudulent and
factually incorrect "data" as some sort of backing to his world view
and scree.

I counted 18 errors (lies) in his above bit of spew. Im going to save
it as a work of art. Not well delivered, but it must have taken him
hours to come up with them.

Ill be sad at the passing of a classic Leftwing Moon Bat when they
come and murder him before long.

Anyone want to start a pool as to what month in what year he is
butchered?

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke
Klaus Schadenfreude
2014-10-18 18:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
# to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
# harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th grade
civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie version of
the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (
Once again--because you seem so fucking dense(er)
a) the ORIGINAL text disallowed states and citizens military
operations. To head off problem---2nd amendment ratified. original
test had NOTHING to do with "right to have a weapon"
LOL

Right. That's why it says "the right to keep and bear arms." They
weren't talking about "rights" or "arms" when they said "right to keep
and bear arms."

They were talking about unicorns.

[chuckle]
Thomas Paine
2014-10-19 13:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (
Once again--because you seem so fucking dense(er)
a) the ORIGINAL text disallowed states and citizens military
operations. To head off problem---2nd amendment ratified. original
test had NOTHING to do with "right to have a weapon"
b) the entire scream of the rightwing idiots (you)---is that
"interpretation" (which you stupidly count on)---is NOT the
conservative "literalist" or "original reading" that the 4-5
conservative justices believe is correct. AND, most of the
conservative political demographic in america is screaming and
"outraged" when a 'ruling" that is NOT "literal" is handed down
c) I did not argue laws related to the 2nd were "illegal"---I'm
whacking your dumb ass for the HYPOCRISY of accepting a
"unoriginalist" decision when you assholes are screaming that
interpretation is ONLY correct "as the founders wrote it"
You're a fake from your plastic gun, to your wal-mart camouflage, to
your gay-boy ads on Craigs list, GUMMER
Good God are you stupid.


The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
individual as opposed to a national armed force.

Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
force.

Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to
1) execute the laws of the union,
2) suppress insurrections and
3) repel invasions.;

The Attorney General of the United States ruled in 1912 that the militia
could not be compelled to serve outside the United States except in the
most narrow of cases (hot pursuit of, or a "spoiling attack" upon,
invaders). "These three occasions, representing necessities of a strictly
domestic character, plainly indicate that the services of the militia can
be rendered only on the soil of the United States and it's territories".
Feb 17, 1912. Source 55 Congressional Record 3851 52.

Now, envision a military force, either regulars or volunteers, which would
be constituted to perform such tasks. Can you imagine such a force needing
nukes for these tasks? Absolutely not. I can imagine no scenario where one
would use nuclear weapons on home soil. Therefore no, nukes are not militia
weapons and are not protected under the 2A.

OTOH the variety of weapons that could be used in the militia mission and
therefore covered by the 2A and prohibited from regulation would give any
liberal permanent diarrhea.

Helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, automatic weapons,
RPGs, etc all meet the criteria of the militia mission.

Have a nice day.
--
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine
BeamMeUpScotty
2014-10-19 13:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (
Once again--because you seem so fucking dense(er)
a) the ORIGINAL text disallowed states and citizens military
operations. To head off problem---2nd amendment ratified. original
test had NOTHING to do with "right to have a weapon"
b) the entire scream of the rightwing idiots (you)---is that
"interpretation" (which you stupidly count on)---is NOT the
conservative "literalist" or "original reading" that the 4-5
conservative justices believe is correct. AND, most of the
conservative political demographic in america is screaming and
"outraged" when a 'ruling" that is NOT "literal" is handed down
c) I did not argue laws related to the 2nd were "illegal"---I'm
whacking your dumb ass for the HYPOCRISY of accepting a
"unoriginalist" decision when you assholes are screaming that
interpretation is ONLY correct "as the founders wrote it"
You're a fake from your plastic gun, to your wal-mart camouflage, to
your gay-boy ads on Craigs list, GUMMER
Good God are you stupid.
The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
individual as opposed to a national armed force.
"The right of the people"

That is the main point that Liberals have a problem with.


Liberals don't allow for the People to have Rights, they believe in an
ALL POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.


And notice that the 2A didn't delegate that power to the people, because
the people had it long before the Constitution was ever written and the
constitution has no delegated power to the Federal Government so they
can regulate a persons right to keep or bear arms.
Thomas Paine
2014-10-19 14:20:40 UTC
Permalink
BeamMeUpScotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (
Once again--because you seem so fucking dense(er)
a) the ORIGINAL text disallowed states and citizens military
operations. To head off problem---2nd amendment ratified. original
test had NOTHING to do with "right to have a weapon"
b) the entire scream of the rightwing idiots (you)---is that
"interpretation" (which you stupidly count on)---is NOT the
conservative "literalist" or "original reading" that the 4-5
conservative justices believe is correct. AND, most of the
conservative political demographic in america is screaming and
"outraged" when a 'ruling" that is NOT "literal" is handed down
c) I did not argue laws related to the 2nd were "illegal"---I'm
whacking your dumb ass for the HYPOCRISY of accepting a
"unoriginalist" decision when you assholes are screaming that
interpretation is ONLY correct "as the founders wrote it"
You're a fake from your plastic gun, to your wal-mart camouflage, to
your gay-boy ads on Craigs list, GUMMER
Good God are you stupid.
The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
individual as opposed to a national armed force.
"The right of the people"
That is the main point that Liberals have a problem with.
Liberals don't allow for the People to have Rights, they believe in an
ALL POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
And notice that the 2A didn't delegate that power to the people, because
the people had it long before the Constitution was ever written and the
constitution has no delegated power to the Federal Government so they
can regulate a persons right to keep or bear arms.
I fear that the 2 differing philosophies in this country are going to
eventually result in bloodshed.

There really seems no rationalway to reconcile the 2 opposing views o
rights and liberty, especially as one denies thier existence.
--
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine
Wayne
2014-10-19 16:43:01 UTC
Permalink
"Thomas Paine" wrote in message news:***@213.239.209.88...

BeamMeUpScotty <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (
Once again--because you seem so fucking dense(er)
a) the ORIGINAL text disallowed states and citizens military
operations. To head off problem---2nd amendment ratified. original
test had NOTHING to do with "right to have a weapon"
b) the entire scream of the rightwing idiots (you)---is that
"interpretation" (which you stupidly count on)---is NOT the
conservative "literalist" or "original reading" that the 4-5
conservative justices believe is correct. AND, most of the
conservative political demographic in america is screaming and
"outraged" when a 'ruling" that is NOT "literal" is handed down
c) I did not argue laws related to the 2nd were "illegal"---I'm
whacking your dumb ass for the HYPOCRISY of accepting a
"unoriginalist" decision when you assholes are screaming that
interpretation is ONLY correct "as the founders wrote it"
You're a fake from your plastic gun, to your wal-mart camouflage, to
your gay-boy ads on Craigs list, GUMMER
Good God are you stupid.
The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
individual as opposed to a national armed force.
"The right of the people"
That is the main point that Liberals have a problem with.
Liberals don't allow for the People to have Rights, they believe in an
ALL POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
And notice that the 2A didn't delegate that power to the people, because
the people had it long before the Constitution was ever written and the
constitution has no delegated power to the Federal Government so they
can regulate a persons right to keep or bear arms.
# I fear that the 2 differing philosophies in this country are going to
# eventually result in bloodshed.

# There really seems no rationalway to reconcile the 2 opposing views o
# rights and liberty, especially as one denies thier existence.

Could be. But, in that event, my side is the side with the guns.

Most likely it will come to a head as a result of liberal judges with an
agenda.
Stormin Mormon
2014-10-19 21:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne
# I fear that the 2 differing philosophies in this country are going to
# eventually result in bloodshed.
# There really seems no rationalway to reconcile the 2 opposing views o
# rights and liberty, especially as one denies thier existence.
Could be. But, in that event, my side is the side with the guns.
Most likely it will come to a head as a result of liberal judges with an
agenda.
I was about to write the same thing. My side plans
to buy a gun some day.

-
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Gronk
2014-10-19 01:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that gave
# the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT of the
# hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals" that would
# comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public and
subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves it
# to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be held
# harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th grade
civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie version of
the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National Guard
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Thomas Paine
2014-10-19 13:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals"
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National Guard
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.

Good God you are stupid.
--
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine
Gronk
2014-10-21 04:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals"
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National Guard
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.

That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks "infringement"
of the 2nd.
Thomas Paine
2014-10-21 05:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it OUT
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals"
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general public
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal in
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version of
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National Guard
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks "infringement"
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
--
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine
Gronk
2014-10-21 13:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals"
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National Guard
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks "infringement"
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.

2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999

Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
Thomas Paine
2014-10-22 01:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals"
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National Guard
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks "infringement"
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
--
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine
Gronk
2014-10-23 20:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution
that
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals"
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it),
the
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and
citizens.
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and
reserves
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a
vast
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution,
200+
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National
Guard
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks "infringement"
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
You didn't do your homework.

Ok, spoiler alert:

the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited

and

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms


Infringement anyone?

Now, back to that question you dodged:

2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Thomas Paine
2014-10-23 23:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
4ax.com...
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution
that
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the
"individuals"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it),
the
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and
citizens.
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and
reserves
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a
vast
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution,
200+
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National
Guard
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks
"infringement"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
You didn't do your homework.
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited
and
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Infringement anyone?
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Yeah, bcause keeping law abiding citizens fromcarrying guns in schools has
worked out really well, right?
--
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine
Gronk
2014-10-28 04:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
4ax.com...
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution
that
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took
it
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the
"individuals"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it),
the
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and
citizens.
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and
reserves
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a
vast
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be
Illegal--
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states
legal
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to
be
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the
2nd
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core"
version
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in
7th
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution,
200+
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National
Guard
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks
"infringement"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
You didn't do your homework.
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited
and
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Infringement anyone?
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Yeah, bcause keeping law abiding citizens fromcarrying guns in schools has
worked out really well, right?
There were armed guards at the Canadian parliament, and that worked out
well, right?
Thomas Paine
2014-10-28 04:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
4ax.com...
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:56:43 -0700, MattB <trdell12345
@gmail.com>
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution
that
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took
it
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the
"individuals"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it),
the
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and
citizens.
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and
reserves
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a
vast
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be
Illegal--
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states
legal
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to
be
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the
2nd
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core"
version
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in
7th
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the
Constitution,
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
200+
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National
Guard
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks
"infringement"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
You didn't do your homework.
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited
and
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Infringement anyone?
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Yeah, bcause keeping law abiding citizens fromcarrying guns in schools has
worked out really well, right?
There were armed guards at the Canadian parliament, and that worked out
well, right?
No, they didn't, you illiterate fuck. Did you actually examine the story in
detail?
--
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine
Mighty_#_Wannabe
2014-10-28 11:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
4ax.com...
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:56:43 -0700, MattB <trdell12345
@gmail.com>
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution
that
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took
it
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the
"individuals"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with
me.
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret
it),
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
the
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and
citizens.
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and
reserves
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a
vast
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be
Illegal--
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states
legal
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens"
to
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
be
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the
2nd
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core"
version
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in
7th
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a
proggie
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the
Constitution,
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
200+
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National
Guard
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks
"infringement"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
You didn't do your homework.
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited
and
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Infringement anyone?
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Yeah, bcause keeping law abiding citizens fromcarrying guns in schools
has
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
worked out really well, right?
There were armed guards at the Canadian parliament, and that worked out
well, right?
No, they didn't, you illiterate fuck. Did you actually examine the story in
detail?
What is there to examine? A gun nut killed innocent people before he was
killed. The same old story over and over again.

The reason there are gun nuts is because there are guns.

Can't you see the cause and effect - guns and gun nuts? Vote Democrat
and ban guns now.
Thomas Paine
2014-10-28 14:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mighty_#_Wannabe
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
4ax.com...
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:56:43 -0700, MattB <trdell12345
@gmail.com>
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal
constittution
that
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took
it
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the
"individuals"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with
me.
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public
or # "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret
it),
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
the
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and
citizens.
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and
reserves
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a
central # government NOT being able to defend/protect the
citizens in a
vast
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be
Illegal--
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states
legal
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# dealing with military "things"---and it required
"Citizens"
to
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
be
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the
2nd
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core"
version
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in
7th
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a
proggie
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the
Constitution,
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
200+
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the
2nd Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the
National
Guard
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually
show themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks
"infringement"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
You didn't do your homework.
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited
and
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Infringement anyone?
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Yeah, bcause keeping law abiding citizens fromcarrying guns in schools
has
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
worked out really well, right?
There were armed guards at the Canadian parliament, and that worked
out well, right?
No, they didn't, you illiterate fuck. Did you actually examine the
story in detail?
What is there to examine? A gun nut killed innocent people before he was
killed. The same old story over and over again.
The reason there are gun nuts is because there are guns.
Can't you see the cause and effect - guns and gun nuts? Vote Democrat
and ban guns now.
No, you're perspective is badly warped. it wasn't a gun nut it it was an
islamofacist cockroach.
--
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine
Gronk
2014-10-31 02:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
4ax.com...
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:56:43 -0700, MattB <trdell12345
@gmail.com>
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution
that
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took
it
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the
"individuals"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with
me.
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by MattB
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret
it),
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
the
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and
citizens.
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and
reserves
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a
vast
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be
Illegal--
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states
legal
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens"
to
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
be
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the
2nd
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core"
version
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in
7th
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a
proggie
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the
Constitution,
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
200+
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National
Guard
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks
"infringement"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
You didn't do your homework.
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited
and
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Infringement anyone?
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Yeah, bcause keeping law abiding citizens fromcarrying guns in schools
has
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
worked out really well, right?
There were armed guards at the Canadian parliament, and that worked out
well, right?
No, they didn't, you illiterate fuck. Did you actually examine the story in
detail?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/world/americas/canada-parliament-gunfire.html

The heart of the Canadian capital was thrown into panic and placed in
lockdown on Wednesday after a gunman armed with a rifle or shotgun fatally
wounded a corporal guarding the tomb of the unknown soldier at the
National War Memorial, entered the nearby Parliament building and fired
multiple times before he was shot and killed.

The soldier died at a hospital, and the gunman was killed inside the
Parliament building, Chief Charles Bordeleau of the Ottawa police said.
P. E. Nis
2014-10-28 07:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
4ax.com...
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution
that
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took
it
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the
"individuals"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it),
the
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and
citizens.
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and
reserves
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a
vast
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be
Illegal--
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states
legal
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to
be
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the
2nd
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core"
version
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in
7th
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution,
200+
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National
Guard
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks
"infringement"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
You didn't do your homework.
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited
and
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Infringement anyone?
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Yeah, bcause keeping law abiding citizens fromcarrying guns in schools has
worked out really well, right?
There were armed guards at the Canadian parliament, and that worked out
well, right?
One retired cop with a pistol in a Halloween costume put down an
incompetent liberal goofball.

If Canada had a few black criminals like the USA, the outcome
would have been drastically different.
Mighty_#_Wannabe
2014-10-28 11:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by P. E. Nis
Post by Gronk
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:35:18 -0700, "Wayne"
4ax.com...
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution
that
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took
it
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the
"individuals"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it),
the
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and
citizens.
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and
reserves
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a
vast
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be
Illegal--
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
IF
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states
legal
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to
be
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the
2nd
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core"
version
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in
7th
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Wayne
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution,
200+
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National
Guard
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks
"infringement"
Post by Gronk
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Gronk
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
of the 2nd.
Please, Constitutional scholar, illuminate us.
Let's start with something simple for you.
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Like Otto, you'll, what was the middle one again?
So you can't tell us. Not that I'm surprised.
You didn't do your homework.
the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited
and
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Infringement anyone?
2008 comes
a) before 1999
b) after 1999
Yeah, bcause keeping law abiding citizens fromcarrying guns in schools has
worked out really well, right?
There were armed guards at the Canadian parliament, and that worked out
well, right?
One retired cop with a pistol in a Halloween costume put down an
incompetent liberal goofball.
If Canada had a few black criminals like the USA, the outcome
would have been drastically different.
You cannot never guard against gun nuts. It is useless to kill the gun
nuts after they have killed innocent people.

The problem is the availability of guns to gun nuts. Ban guns now.
Mighty_#_Wannabe
2014-10-28 11:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, because keeping law abiding citizens from carrying guns in schools has
worked out really well, right?
Most gun nuts were considered law-abiding citizens before they started
shooting. It will be even more difficult to spot a gun nut if everybody
is carrying a gun.

The reason there are gun nuts is because there are guns.

No firearm no cry. Ban guns now to save innocent lives.
Thomas Paine
2014-10-28 14:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mighty_#_Wannabe
Yeah, because keeping law abiding citizens from carrying guns in
schools has worked out really well, right?
Most gun nuts were considered law-abiding citizens before they started
shooting. It will be even more difficult to spot a gun nut if everybody
is carrying a gun.
The reason there are gun nuts is because there are guns.
No firearm no cry. Ban guns now to save innocent lives.
Irrational. Delusional.
--
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine
Jack Bruce@bass.gov
2014-10-28 14:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mighty_#_Wannabe
Yeah, because keeping law abiding citizens from carrying guns in
schools has worked out really well, right?
Most gun nuts were considered law-abiding citizens before they started
shooting. It will be even more difficult to spot a gun nut if everybody
is carrying a gun.
The reason there are gun nuts is because there are guns.
No firearm no cry. Ban guns now to save innocent lives.
Irrational. Delusional.

####
Well, he's correct when it comes to DooDoo and his guns.
Bert
2014-10-28 15:17:22 UTC
Permalink
In news:544f7dd5$0$6334$***@headers2.newsreader.com
Mighty_#_Wannabe <Mighty_#***@No_Mail.edu> wrote:

NNTP-Posting-Host: 178.22.82.14

inetnum: 178.22.82.0 - 178.22.82.255
netname: PROLOCATION-SPEI
descr: www.prolocation.net
country: NL

role: Prolocation NOC role
address: Prolocation B.V.
address: Populierlaan 3B
address: NL-2282 KX Rijswijk
address: The Netherlands
Post by Mighty_#_Wannabe
No firearm no cry. Ban guns now to save innocent lives.
You Dutch can do whatever you like.
--
***@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
BeamMeUpScotty
2014-10-28 15:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mighty_#_Wannabe
Yeah, because keeping law abiding citizens from carrying guns in schools has
worked out really well, right?
Most gun nuts were considered law-abiding citizens before they started
shooting.
Liberals seem to think the only gun owners with any rights are
the criminals.....
--
*Rumination*
#14 - If more Government, solves all the problems, prison must be a
Socialists Utopia.... and a Club Med vacation for Liberals.
Scout
2014-10-28 18:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mighty_#_Wannabe
Yeah, because keeping law abiding citizens from carrying guns in schools has
worked out really well, right?
Most gun nuts were considered law-abiding citizens before they started
shooting. It will be even more difficult to spot a gun nut if everybody is
carrying a gun.
The reason there are gun nuts is because there are guns.
No firearm no cry. Ban guns now to save innocent lives.
In short, you don't care if nuts kill people, just as long as they don't use
a gun to do so.
BeamMeUpScotty
2014-10-21 15:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve from Colorado
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
# It had to do with the creation of the federal constittution that
gave # the power to arm, and control a militia/army that took it
OUT
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
of the # hands of the state(s). Included were the "individuals"
that would # comprise those militias
Wrong. It was to keep the gummint from disarming the general
public
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
Post by MattB
Post by Wayne
and subjugating the general public.
And by the way, the USSC disagrees with you and agrees with me.
True and he hates that.
# There was NEVER a reason of fear of disarming the public or
# "subjugating' it you ignorant halfwit.
# READ the constitution (it's not about having to interpret it), the
# relevant parts where it deals with militias, states, and citizens.
# The ORIGINAL text takes the power of military "things" and reserves
it # to the federal government.
# The ORIGINAL colonies (states)---saw the problem of a central
# government NOT being able to defend/protect the citizens in a vast
# coastal area---against hostiles, foriegn enemies, etc.
# The STATES (under the un-amended constitution) would be Illegal--IF
# they were to fund, field, and maneuver a military operation.
# THAT is why the 2nd amendment was adopted----to make states legal
in
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
# dealing with military "things"---and it required "Citizens" to be
held # harmless for being part.
# There was NEVER a fear of "subjugation" as the reason for the 2nd
# amendment
Apparently you have been reading some kind of "common core" version
of
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Gronk
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Wayne
England's ruling of the colonies.
As for all the militia crap you spout, I first read the 2nd in 7th
grade civics class and fully and correctly understood it.
Somehow your understanding process required concocting a proggie
version of the 2nd...a version struck down by the USSC.
Indeed. Fascinating how he tries rewriting both the Constitution, 200+
yrs of decisions by Scotus (37 times its stated clearing the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right) and claimed that the National Guard
which was formed in 1907..was formed by the Founders in 1789
Just fascinating how mentally ill the Leftards continually show
themselves to be.
He really...really needs to read this
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Hmmm. 1999 vintage. Does not mention Heller...
Which simply means Heller is aligned with previous positions.
Good God you are stupid.
Good God you are stupid.
That link is dated 1999. Heller was in 2008...and it oks "infringement"
of the 2nd.
Since ObamaCare OK's Slavery, it only makes sense that the 2nd amendment
is as irrelevant as the 13th amendment and made so by a Federal court
that has no Jurisdiction on the subject of keeping and bearing arms.
But why pretend the rest of the constitution is relevant?


You Liberals quote the 16th and 14th amendments and the welfare clause
and the commerce clause and the Supremacy clause, when they have no
obviously have no more relevance than the others since the entire
document must be void if the 2nd and the 13th amendment are null and void.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Help search the universe for an intelligent Liberal life form.
*THE UGLY STEP SISTER PROJECT NOT RELATED TO* (SETI)
Send BitCoin To: 1DYxrfVTdS1xhDJkhhrm1zb1cSYBYuUC4i
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...