CDZ Gun control laws what a joke

[FA_Q2]

I do have a problem with the loons and merchants who have coopted millions into believing that the darn thing addresses matters its authors never did say, think or intend.

As in?

That we as citizens have somehow allowed the profit motives of a huge arms industry to distort the words of men whom we hold in highest regard is what I find bothersome.

What has the 'huge arms industry' distorted?

With regard to the questions you posed, you'll find the answers to both in the content at the links I provided. I shared those links with you and all other readers so I wouldn't have to write all that stuff in my own words or plagiarize the words of the writers.

The content you posted is completely unclear as to the specific points you raised. You specifically state that you do not like what 'the huge arms industry' has distorted and that merchants have coopted millions into believing. Those articles and statements from the framers do not address that actual charge. They are missing the key that I asked you for: What YOU think has been distorted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing written or argued by any of the poeple involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.

-- George Washington,.....
​

I cited the SCotUS:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I then said:
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Noting in your post does anything to counter my post.

 

[320 Years of History]

The content you posted is completely unclear as to the specific points you raised. You specifically state that you do not like what 'the huge arms industry' has distorted and that merchants have coopted millions into believing. Those articles and statements from the framers do not address that actual charge. They are missing the key that I asked you for: What YOU think has been distorted.

??? Say what? My post, #15, speaks of only one theme: the misrepresentation of history and the nature and extent of the intent the framers had.

The nature of the misrepresentation of historical facts and framers' intent:
The Nathan Kozuskanich's quote found in post 15 explains exactly the nature and extent of distortion that I see extant in the historically oriented arguments the gun lobby presents. The reference links I provided include two scholarly papers that provide a complete -- both sides -- depiction of the views of the Founding Fathers. The NRA in advocating for gun ownership rights does nothing of the sort, and by not so doing, distorts the citizenry's perception of the intent of the Founding Fathers.

For example, on the NRA's website, one finds in the first section titled "Does the Second Amendment Describe an Individual Right?" an abridged quote from Thomas Paine. Below I present the NRA's version of the quote and the actual quote, which in post 21 you'll see that I even provided the original source reference for Mr. Paine's statement. In presenting his actual statements below, I have emboldened the words the NRA opted to omit.

• The quote shown there is:

"[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."​

• The full quote is:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike."
​

I don't think anyone needs me to explain how the NRA's representation of Mr. Paine's words is completely out of context and not at all a full and fair depiction of what the man said.

If you and others would bother to actually read at least the two papers to which I provided links, and then examine the content on the NRA's website (or on other gun advocacy sites that claim to depict the Founder's intent), it's not at all hard to see the use of omission and contextual inaccuracy of the claims those organizations make in order to sway public opinion.

Mind you, I have no objection with organizations attempting to sway opinion, particularly organizations comprised of and organized to defend the rights and freedoms of individuals. I absolutely, however, have a very big problem when such organizations do so by incompletely describing historical events. I become all the more riled when the events depicted are ones that the average citizen does not study or encounter in "gory detail" in the course of their standard K-12 education or as part of a survey-type collegiate American history class as is the case with documents such as the letters of Thomas Paine and other luminaries, or transcripts of the proceedings and debate of the Continental Congresses, or colonial legislatures.

When I ages ago began seeing quotes from various gun lobby entities, I initially was inclined to accept that they "fairly present in all material respects," to use accounting parlance, the intent of the Founders. However, I also felt compelled to check to see if that was so, perhaps because I took to heart Ronald Reagan's admonishment "trust, but verify." And verify I did.

It was upon doing so that I discovered the sorts of misrepresentations one'll discover too upon reading either the source documents (referenced in the papers for which I provided links) or the papers I noted earlier. Now, are the comparisons such as the Paine one I provide above laid out for the reader in those papers? No, they are not, and, quite frankly, I'm not going to lay out each and every one of them for readers here either. The reader must undertake one their own to perform that analysis. Were they to conduct their own first hand intellectually rigorous investigation of what the founders actually thought and meant, they like one scholar after another would find that "[c]ontrary to the claim of some modern gun rights advocates, robust regulation of firearms is not only compatible with the Second Amendment, it is an essential part of the founders' vision of how guns fit within the framework of well regulated liberty."

To end my comments on the nature and extent of the historical distortions effected by gun advocacy groups and individuals I will just say that without exception, when I observe individuals or groups who/that don't present the full story, I unavoidably wonder why would they not do so. Time and time again, my experience has revealed that people only tell their side, a selected subset, of a set of undeniable facts when they have a motive other than sharing information and just letting folks, decision makers and influencers, use that information to arrive at their own conclusion. That is, when they have a vested interest in our concluding in agreement with them. Most often that vested interest relates, sooner or later, to money.

For additional scholarly reference material on the historical intent of the Second Amendment, its writers, and the people who debated and ratified it and similar state constitutional provisions see Second Amendment Law Library . One can find an enumeration and brief depictions of numerous court decisions pertaining to the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment here: Cooking Up A Collective Right , and unlike the NRA's site, one will find too that the author makes a point to note, even when a decision favors the anti-individual rights point of view, whether the opinion writing justice was considered an loon so as not to depict the opinon as being among the best, even if it does support the author's point of view. (Be that as it may, the author cites specific cases and one can look up and read the opinions and background (case and justices) for oneself and determine whether one agrees or not with the author's presentation of the facts. Frankly, I think one should do exactly that if one has a strong view on the legitimacy of the Second Amendment's history and intent.)

Contrast the presentation of past thought and expression on the Second Amendment there with what the NRA presents on the same topic. Once again, one discovers that the NRA's depiction is woefully incomplete. No, the author doesn't present all cases that support both points of view, but he does present the full picture of the ones he cites. And, to reiterate, my "issue" is with the incomplete, and thus distorted, presentation of historical events, and not necessarily with the conclusions one, or the NRA, draws from them.

The "gun industry's" role in the whole matter of regulation:
I wrote that the distortion issues from the "gun industry." That the gun industry is behind the misrepresentations of which I wrote wasn't and isn't the point of my having mentioned it; however, I'll explain why I did mention that industry.

I wrote that because of the economic support the consumer goods segment of the arms industry provides huge sums of money to the NRA and other gun advocacy groups. I also wrote that because the legislation for which the NRA advocates doesn't conform to the views of the majority of its individual members according to a 2011 poll. I am not alone in seeing the NRA as being the primary advocacy outlet for the gun industry, even though strictly speaking the National Shooting Sports Federation is the gun industry's main trade association. Some companies even go so far as to donate portions of their sales directly to the NRA, for example:

• Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA.
• Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns.
• Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions.

I'm not suggesting that the contributions are illegal. I'm saying that they constitute a plurality of the funding the NRA obtains. I'm saying that in choosing whose views and interests to support, those of a single entity/person who directs millions to the organization are given far more consideration than are those of individual gun owners who contribute vastly less than millions, or even hundreds of thousands.

No surprise there; that's the way things work for any organization. The impact of the disparity in supporting contribution size between "Mark, Mary and Mike gun owner/enthusiast" and, say, Sturm Rugar has a huge impact that is seen every time we hear of some crazy shooter: the NRA goes into defense mode to do everything it can to make sure that Sturm's fortunes aren't adversely affected by gun legislation. This even as the poll noted above shows that a majority of NRA individual contributors/members support stricter gun ownership legislation. Therein lies the problem. The NRA, understandably, doesn't want to compromise its revenue streams, the lion's share of which come from corporations and in not risking those funds, the NRA ends up subordinating the interests and wishes of the majority of its members to those of the largest contributors to its coffers.

 

[320 Years of History]

Nothing written or argued by any of the poeple involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.

-- George Washington,.....
​

I cited the SCotUS:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I then said:
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Noting in your post does anything to counter my post.

Do you not consider all the Founding Fathers whom I cited to have been associated with the creation and ratification of the Second Amendment?

 

[FA_Q2]

The content you posted is completely unclear as to the specific points you raised. You specifically state that you do not like what 'the huge arms industry' has distorted and that merchants have coopted millions into believing. Those articles and statements from the framers do not address that actual charge. They are missing the key that I asked you for: What YOU think has been distorted.

??? Say what? My post, #15, speaks of only one theme: the misrepresentation of history and the nature and extent of the intent the framers had.

The nature of the misrepresentation of historical facts and framers' intent:
The Nathan Kozuskanich's quote found in post 15 explains exactly the nature and extent of distortion that I see extant in the historically oriented arguments the gun lobby presents. The reference links I provided include two scholarly papers that provide a complete -- both sides -- depiction of the views of the Founding Fathers. The NRA in advocating for gun ownership rights does nothing of the sort, and by not so doing, distorts the citizenry's perception of the intent of the Founding Fathers.

For example, on the NRA's website, one finds in the first section titled "Does the Second Amendment Describe an Individual Right?" an abridged quote from Thomas Paine. Below I present the NRA's version of the quote and the actual quote, which in post 21 you'll see that I even provided the original source reference for Mr. Paine's statement. In presenting his actual statements below, I have emboldened the words the NRA opted to omit.

• The quote shown there is:

"[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."​

• The full quote is:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike."
​

I don't think anyone needs me to explain how the NRA's representation of Mr. Paine's words is completely out of context and not at all a full and fair depiction of what the man said.

If you and others would bother to actually read at least the two papers to which I provided links, and then examine the content on the NRA's website (or on other gun advocacy sites that claim to depict the Founder's intent), it's not at all hard to see the use of omission and contextual inaccuracy of the claims those organizations make in order to sway public opinion.

Mind you, I have no objection with organizations attempting to sway opinion, particularly organizations comprised of and organized to defend the rights and freedoms of individuals. I absolutely, however, have a very big problem when such organizations do so by incompletely describing historical events. I become all the more riled when the events depicted are ones that the average citizen does not study or encounter in "gory detail" in the course of their standard K-12 education or as part of a survey-type collegiate American history class as is the case with documents such as the letters of Thomas Paine and other luminaries, or transcripts of the proceedings and debate of the Continental Congresses, or colonial legislatures.

When I ages ago began seeing quotes from various gun lobby entities, I initially was inclined to accept that they "fairly present in all material respects," to use accounting parlance, the intent of the Founders. However, I also felt compelled to check to see if that was so, perhaps because I took to heart Ronald Reagan's admonishment "trust, but verify." And verify I did.

It was upon doing so that I discovered the sorts of misrepresentations one'll discover too upon reading either the source documents (referenced in the papers for which I provided links) or the papers I noted earlier. Now, are the comparisons such as the Paine one I provide above laid out for the reader in those papers? No, they are not, and, quite frankly, I'm not going to lay out each and every one of them for readers here either. The reader must undertake one their own to perform that analysis. Were they to conduct their own first hand intellectually rigorous investigation of what the founders actually thought and meant, they like one scholar after another would find that "[c]ontrary to the claim of some modern gun rights advocates, robust regulation of firearms is not only compatible with the Second Amendment, it is an essential part of the founders' vision of how guns fit within the framework of well regulated liberty."

To end my comments on the nature and extent of the historical distortions effected by gun advocacy groups and individuals I will just say that without exception, when I observe individuals or groups who/that don't present the full story, I unavoidably wonder why would they not do so. Time and time again, my experience has revealed that people only tell their side, a selected subset, of a set of undeniable facts when they have a motive other than sharing information and just letting folks, decision makers and influencers, use that information to arrive at their own conclusion. That is, when they have a vested interest in our concluding in agreement with them. Most often that vested interest relates, sooner or later, to money.

For additional scholarly reference material on the historical intent of the Second Amendment, its writers, and the people who debated and ratified it and similar state constitutional provisions see Second Amendment Law Library . One can find an enumeration and brief depictions of numerous court decisions pertaining to the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment here: Cooking Up A Collective Right , and unlike the NRA's site, one will find too that the author makes a point to note, even when a decision favors the anti-individual rights point of view, whether the opinion writing justice was considered an loon so as not to depict the opinon as being among the best, even if it does support the author's point of view. (Be that as it may, the author cites specific cases and one can look up and read the opinions and background (case and justices) for oneself and determine whether one agrees or not with the author's presentation of the facts. Frankly, I think one should do exactly that if one has a strong view on the legitimacy of the Second Amendment's history and intent.)

Contrast the presentation of past thought and expression on the Second Amendment there with what the NRA presents on the same topic. Once again, one discovers that the NRA's depiction is woefully incomplete. No, the author doesn't present all cases that support both points of view, but he does present the full picture of the ones he cites. And, to reiterate, my "issue" is with the incomplete, and thus distorted, presentation of historical events, and not necessarily with the conclusions one, or the NRA, draws from them.

The "gun industry's" role in the whole matter of regulation:
I wrote that the distortion issues from the "gun industry." That the gun industry is behind the misrepresentations of which I wrote wasn't and isn't the point of my having mentioned it; however, I'll explain why I did mention that industry.

I wrote that because of the economic support the consumer goods segment of the arms industry provides huge sums of money to the NRA and other gun advocacy groups. I also wrote that because the legislation for which the NRA advocates doesn't conform to the views of the majority of its individual members according to a 2011 poll. I am not alone in seeing the NRA as being the primary advocacy outlet for the gun industry, even though strictly speaking the National Shooting Sports Federation is the gun industry's main trade association. Some companies even go so far as to donate portions of their sales directly to the NRA, for example:

• Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA.
• Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns.
• Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions.

I'm not suggesting that the contributions are illegal. I'm saying that they constitute a plurality of the funding the NRA obtains. I'm saying that in choosing whose views and interests to support, those of a single entity/person who directs millions to the organization are given far more consideration than are those of individual gun owners who contribute vastly less than millions, or even hundreds of thousands.

No surprise there; that's the way things work for any organization. The impact of the disparity in supporting contribution size between "Mark, Mary and Mike gun owner/enthusiast" and, say, Sturm Rugar has a huge impact that is seen every time we hear of some crazy shooter: the NRA goes into defense mode to do everything it can to make sure that Sturm's fortunes aren't adversely affected by gun legislation. This even as the poll noted above shows that a majority of NRA individual contributors/members support stricter gun ownership legislation. Therein lies the problem. The NRA, understandably, doesn't want to compromise its revenue streams, the lion's share of which come from corporations and in not risking those funds, the NRA ends up subordinating the interests and wishes of the majority of its members to those of the largest contributors to its coffers.

This will take time to respond to but I will give you a response.

 

[320 Years of History]

The content you posted is completely unclear as to the specific points you raised. You specifically state that you do not like what 'the huge arms industry' has distorted and that merchants have coopted millions into believing. Those articles and statements from the framers do not address that actual charge. They are missing the key that I asked you for: What YOU think has been distorted.

??? Say what? My post, #15, speaks of only one theme: the misrepresentation of history and the nature and extent of the intent the framers had.

The nature of the misrepresentation of historical facts and framers' intent:
The Nathan Kozuskanich's quote found in post 15 explains exactly the nature and extent of distortion that I see extant in the historically oriented arguments the gun lobby presents. The reference links I provided include two scholarly papers that provide a complete -- both sides -- depiction of the views of the Founding Fathers. The NRA in advocating for gun ownership rights does nothing of the sort, and by not so doing, distorts the citizenry's perception of the intent of the Founding Fathers.

For example, on the NRA's website, one finds in the first section titled "Does the Second Amendment Describe an Individual Right?" an abridged quote from Thomas Paine. Below I present the NRA's version of the quote and the actual quote, which in post 21 you'll see that I even provided the original source reference for Mr. Paine's statement. In presenting his actual statements below, I have emboldened the words the NRA opted to omit.

• The quote shown there is:

"[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."​

• The full quote is:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike."
​

I don't think anyone needs me to explain how the NRA's representation of Mr. Paine's words is completely out of context and not at all a full and fair depiction of what the man said.

If you and others would bother to actually read at least the two papers to which I provided links, and then examine the content on the NRA's website (or on other gun advocacy sites that claim to depict the Founder's intent), it's not at all hard to see the use of omission and contextual inaccuracy of the claims those organizations make in order to sway public opinion.

Mind you, I have no objection with organizations attempting to sway opinion, particularly organizations comprised of and organized to defend the rights and freedoms of individuals. I absolutely, however, have a very big problem when such organizations do so by incompletely describing historical events. I become all the more riled when the events depicted are ones that the average citizen does not study or encounter in "gory detail" in the course of their standard K-12 education or as part of a survey-type collegiate American history class as is the case with documents such as the letters of Thomas Paine and other luminaries, or transcripts of the proceedings and debate of the Continental Congresses, or colonial legislatures.

When I ages ago began seeing quotes from various gun lobby entities, I initially was inclined to accept that they "fairly present in all material respects," to use accounting parlance, the intent of the Founders. However, I also felt compelled to check to see if that was so, perhaps because I took to heart Ronald Reagan's admonishment "trust, but verify." And verify I did.

It was upon doing so that I discovered the sorts of misrepresentations one'll discover too upon reading either the source documents (referenced in the papers for which I provided links) or the papers I noted earlier. Now, are the comparisons such as the Paine one I provide above laid out for the reader in those papers? No, they are not, and, quite frankly, I'm not going to lay out each and every one of them for readers here either. The reader must undertake one their own to perform that analysis. Were they to conduct their own first hand intellectually rigorous investigation of what the founders actually thought and meant, they like one scholar after another would find that "[c]ontrary to the claim of some modern gun rights advocates, robust regulation of firearms is not only compatible with the Second Amendment, it is an essential part of the founders' vision of how guns fit within the framework of well regulated liberty."

To end my comments on the nature and extent of the historical distortions effected by gun advocacy groups and individuals I will just say that without exception, when I observe individuals or groups who/that don't present the full story, I unavoidably wonder why would they not do so. Time and time again, my experience has revealed that people only tell their side, a selected subset, of a set of undeniable facts when they have a motive other than sharing information and just letting folks, decision makers and influencers, use that information to arrive at their own conclusion. That is, when they have a vested interest in our concluding in agreement with them. Most often that vested interest relates, sooner or later, to money.

For additional scholarly reference material on the historical intent of the Second Amendment, its writers, and the people who debated and ratified it and similar state constitutional provisions see Second Amendment Law Library . One can find an enumeration and brief depictions of numerous court decisions pertaining to the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment here: Cooking Up A Collective Right , and unlike the NRA's site, one will find too that the author makes a point to note, even when a decision favors the anti-individual rights point of view, whether the opinion writing justice was considered an loon so as not to depict the opinon as being among the best, even if it does support the author's point of view. (Be that as it may, the author cites specific cases and one can look up and read the opinions and background (case and justices) for oneself and determine whether one agrees or not with the author's presentation of the facts. Frankly, I think one should do exactly that if one has a strong view on the legitimacy of the Second Amendment's history and intent.)

Contrast the presentation of past thought and expression on the Second Amendment there with what the NRA presents on the same topic. Once again, one discovers that the NRA's depiction is woefully incomplete. No, the author doesn't present all cases that support both points of view, but he does present the full picture of the ones he cites. And, to reiterate, my "issue" is with the incomplete, and thus distorted, presentation of historical events, and not necessarily with the conclusions one, or the NRA, draws from them.

The "gun industry's" role in the whole matter of regulation:
I wrote that the distortion issues from the "gun industry." That the gun industry is behind the misrepresentations of which I wrote wasn't and isn't the point of my having mentioned it; however, I'll explain why I did mention that industry.

I wrote that because of the economic support the consumer goods segment of the arms industry provides huge sums of money to the NRA and other gun advocacy groups. I also wrote that because the legislation for which the NRA advocates doesn't conform to the views of the majority of its individual members according to a 2011 poll. I am not alone in seeing the NRA as being the primary advocacy outlet for the gun industry, even though strictly speaking the National Shooting Sports Federation is the gun industry's main trade association. Some companies even go so far as to donate portions of their sales directly to the NRA, for example:

• Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA.
• Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns.
• Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions.

I'm not suggesting that the contributions are illegal. I'm saying that they constitute a plurality of the funding the NRA obtains. I'm saying that in choosing whose views and interests to support, those of a single entity/person who directs millions to the organization are given far more consideration than are those of individual gun owners who contribute vastly less than millions, or even hundreds of thousands.

No surprise there; that's the way things work for any organization. The impact of the disparity in supporting contribution size between "Mark, Mary and Mike gun owner/enthusiast" and, say, Sturm Rugar has a huge impact that is seen every time we hear of some crazy shooter: the NRA goes into defense mode to do everything it can to make sure that Sturm's fortunes aren't adversely affected by gun legislation. This even as the poll noted above shows that a majority of NRA individual contributors/members support stricter gun ownership legislation. Therein lies the problem. The NRA, understandably, doesn't want to compromise its revenue streams, the lion's share of which come from corporations and in not risking those funds, the NRA ends up subordinating the interests and wishes of the majority of its members to those of the largest contributors to its coffers.

This will take time to respond to but I will give you a response.

NP...I'm in no hurry. I look forward to reading your remarks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing written or argued by any of the poeple involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.

-- George Washington,.....
​

I cited the SCotUS:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I then said:
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Noting in your post does anything to counter my post.

Do you not consider all the Founding Fathers whom I cited to have been associated with the creation and ratification of the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Rather than bloviate, simply cite the relevant people who argued to the contrary, and their words to that effect.

 

[oldsoul]

If you do not beleive FA, then I challenge you to follow the money. Who, exactly is profiting, and getting very rich, on this issue? Saying," but we have to do...SOMETHING", while solving nothing, and getting richer by the day. And no, it's not the"gun lobby", they are getting rich despite the issue and arguement.
Also, see the last quote below...

Why don't you just make your point.

Why don't you do your homework?

Thought you might have something of value to add to the conversation. Sadly, that appears to be false. Oh well.

Get back to me once you understand debate and supporting an argument (or even making one). I will not do your work for you.

Ok, if you insist, then I say again, I challenge you to follow the money. Have you done this? I was my challenge that was the point. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I thought I was quite clear.

 

[320 Years of History]

Nothing written or argued by any of the poeple involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.

-- George Washington,.....
​

I cited the SCotUS:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I then said:
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Noting in your post does anything to counter my post.

Do you not consider all the Founding Fathers whom I cited to have been associated with the creation and ratification of the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Rather than bloviate, simply cite the relevant people who argued to the contrary, and their words to that effect.

I did. Go read the post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing written or argued by any of the poeple involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.

-- George Washington,.....
​

I cited the SCotUS:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I then said:
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Noting in your post does anything to counter my post.

Do you not consider all the Founding Fathers whom I cited to have been associated with the creation and ratification of the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Rather than bloviate, simply cite the relevant people who argued to the contrary, and their words to that effect.

I did. Go read the post.

Nothing you posted runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how.

 

[320 Years of History]

Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.

-- George Washington,.....
​

I cited the SCotUS:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I then said:
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Noting in your post does anything to counter my post.

Do you not consider all the Founding Fathers whom I cited to have been associated with the creation and ratification of the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Rather than bloviate, simply cite the relevant people who argued to the contrary, and their words to that effect.

I did. Go read the post.

Nothing you posted runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how.

Go read the post. If you can't find the content of which I speak, shame on you.

I already provided in it statements (and identified the documents in which their statements can be found) from two Founding Fathers that show clearly that they spoke of the self defence aspects of the Second Amendment and in so writing, made clear that they had no vision of the 2nd being purposed on the notion of self-defense. I provided the statements I did because they so clear in that regard that neither I nor anyone else need explain them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I cited the SCotUS:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I then said:
Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.

Noting in your post does anything to counter my post.

Do you not consider all the Founding Fathers whom I cited to have been associated with the creation and ratification of the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Rather than bloviate, simply cite the relevant people who argued to the contrary, and their words to that effect.

I did. Go read the post.

Nothing you posted runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how.

Go read the post. If you can't find the content of which I speak, shame on you.

Translation:
You know do not quotes that show conflict with the ruling in Heller.
I accept you concession of the point. Thank you.

 

[320 Years of History]

Go read the post. If you can't find the content of which I speak, shame on you.

Translation:
You know do not quotes that show conflict with the ruling in Heller.
I accept you concession of the point. Thank you.[/QUOTE]

I don't care about what you claim is the translation of what I wrote.

• I wrote in English, so there's no translation necessary.
• I didn't "stutter," so again, no translation is necessary.
• Anyone, except apparently you, can see plainly the self-defense elements of the Founding Fathers' quotes I provided in post #23 since they were expressly stated by the writers.
• Anyone, except apparently you, will recognize immediately that the statements you made in post #22 were as follows:
  
  
  I cited the SCotUS:
  The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
  
  I then said:
  Nothing written or argued by any of the people involved with the creation or ratification of the 2nd says anything different.
  
  Noting in your post does anything to counter my post. ​
  
  And they will see that nobody connected with Heller had a damn thing to do with "creating or ratifying the 2nd."
• Anyone who investigates Heller will observe that the scope of Heller did not address whether the decision extended beyond Federal Districts. It was in McDonald that the Court asserted for the states and their residents the right to possess firearms for self-defence.
• Anyone who reads the Heller decision will see in footnote six the relevance of historic context in evaluating the Second or any other part of the BoR..
• Anyone who reads the exchange between you and me will observe that you began by asserting that no Founding Fathers spoke of the ludicrousness of the 2nd being intended for self-defense, and upon my showing that at least two did, you have moved to trying to correlate Heller with the Founding Fathers, and in so doing have tried to recast the theme of your earlier statement.
• Anyone who reads this discussion will also observe that whether one or 100 Founding Fathers (FFs) had something to say about the 2nd and self-defense isn't the central theme of thread's topic. They will further note that had you merely acceded to there having been FFs who did remark on the self-defence idea and historic context is important, you could have remained on point and not lost face, for the historic imperatives are not the only or only important factors in divining the FFs' intent and meaning by including it among the BoR.
  

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't care about what you claim is the translation of what I wrote.

You must, as you'd not have crafted such a long-winded and meaningless response.

Fact remains:
Nothing you posted cites anyone with any statement that runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding.

You will of course, refuse to do so because you know you cannot.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't care about what you claim is the translation of what I wrote.

You must, as you'd not have crafted such a long-winded and meaningless response.

Fact remains:
Nothing you posted cites anyone with any statement that runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding.

You will of course, refuse to do so because you know you cannot.

You are incorrect as to why I will not do so. I will not do so because I have provided the quotes in post #23 and I expect you to read it and the supporting information referenced there if you want to discuss it with me. If you feel the quotes I provided do not attest to the points I say they do, then I expect you to do more than simply say they do not. I expect you to demonstrate how it is that they do not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't care about what you claim is the translation of what I wrote.

You must, as you'd not have crafted such a long-winded and meaningless response.

Fact remains:
Nothing you posted cites anyone with any statement that runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding.
You will of course, refuse to do so because you know you cannot.

You are incorrect as to why I will not do so.

This is a lie.
You don't have it You know, it, I know it, anyone who reads this thread and are remotely familiar with the subject knows it.
You don't have the goods and you're hoping to gasbag your way out of having to admit it.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding.

 

[oldsoul]

I don't care about what you claim is the translation of what I wrote.

You must, as you'd not have crafted such a long-winded and meaningless response.

Fact remains:
Nothing you posted cites anyone with any statement that runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding.
You will of course, refuse to do so because you know you cannot.

You are incorrect as to why I will not do so.

This is a lie.
You don't have it You know, it, I know it, anyone who reads this thread and are remotely familiar with the subject knows it.
You don't have the goods and you're hoping to gasbag your way out of having to admit it.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding.

M14,
Oh teller of untruths, thy trousers hath combusted....

While I may agree with some, but not all of your sentiments, you have sumarily lost this debate. Admit it and move on, before you make a complete fool of yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't care about what you claim is the translation of what I wrote.

You must, as you'd not have crafted such a long-winded and meaningless response.

Fact remains:
Nothing you posted cites anyone with any statement that runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding.
You will of course, refuse to do so because you know you cannot.

You are incorrect as to why I will not do so.

This is a lie.
You don't have it You know, it, I know it, anyone who reads this thread and are remotely familiar with the subject knows it.
You don't have the goods and you're hoping to gasbag your way out of having to admit it.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding.

M14,
Oh teller of untruths, thy trousers hath combusted....
While I may agree with some, but not all of your sentiments, you have sumarily lost this debate. Admit it and move on, before you make a complete fool of yourself.

On the contrary.
Nothing he posted cites anyone with any statement that runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding

 

[320 Years of History]

On the contrary.
Nothing he posted cites anyone with any statement that runs contrary to the holding in Heller.
Disagree?
Provide the quote, cite the quote, and explain how the quote contradicts said holding[/QUOTE]

Nothing you wrote in the statement to which I responded (see posts 15 and 23) pertains to Heller. It pertains to what the Founding Fathers did or didn't intend in their crafting of the Second Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing you wrote in the statement to which I responded (see posts 15 and 23) pertains to Heller. It pertains to what the Founding Fathers did or didn't intend in their crafting of the Second Amendment.

Yawn.
You had your chance, son - all your huffing and puffing, and yet the house still stands.