BREAKING NEWS--CA--Another Mass Shooting

[LoneLaugher]

I understand that this nutjob also used his automobile as a weapon.

Fortunately for those victims and their families........

 

[Pogo]

STILL waiting....

 

[LoneLaugher]

Read......please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/o...ear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

 

[Pogo]

Read......please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/o...ear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Excellent piece...

The surprising discovery is that of all the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, the Second was probably the least debated. What we know is that the founders were deeply opposed to a standing army, which they viewed as the first step toward tyranny. Instead, their assumption was that the male citizenry would all belong to local militias. As Waldman writes, “They were not allowed to have a musket; they were required to. More than a right, being armed was a duty.”

Thus the unsurprising discovery: Virtually every reference to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” — the second part of the Second Amendment — was in reference to military defense. Waldman notes the House debate over the Second Amendment in the summer of 1789: “Twelve congressmen joined the debate. None mentioned a private right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting or for any purpose other than joining the militia.”

....
But then, in 1977, there was a coup at the National Rifle Association, which was taken over by Second Amendment fundamentalists. Over the course of the next 30 years, they set out to do nothing less than change the meaning of the Second Amendment, so that its final phrase — “shall not be infringed” — referred to an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a collective right for the common defense.


....
Still, as Waldman notes, the effort was wildly successful. In 1972, the Republican platform favored gun control. By 1980, the Republican platform opposed gun registration. That year, the N.R.A. gave its first-ever presidential endorsement to Ronald Reagan.​

(emphasis added)


Always always invaluable to know how we got where we are now. IOU rep when the clock allows.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read......please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/o...ear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Fact:
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.

 

[Pogo]

Read......please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/o...ear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Fact:
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.

Fact: the first words of the Second Amendment are,
"“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

Fact: the Second Amendment makes no reference to the 'home' --- even though the next Amendment specifically does. Or to self-defense.

Fact: you continue to fail to prove your case alleging I'm a "liar".

STILL more proof that M14 can only post frrom ignorance, emotion or dishonesty.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Read......please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/o...ear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Fact:
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.

That is not a fact.

Do you know what a fact is?

 

[LockeJaw]

Liberals think that people are stupid enough to buy their bs interpretation of the constitution. Morons. Your stance isn't even worthy of debate.

Keep trolling hard, liberals.

 

[Ringel05]

Read......please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/o...ear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Fact:
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.

That is not a fact.

Do you know what a fact is?

Not only POTUS but the founding fathers in their writings completely disagree with you....... Funny that.........

 

[Ringel05]

Read......please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/o...ear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Fact:
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.

Fact: the first words of the Second Amendment are,
"“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

Fact: the Second Amendment makes no reference to the 'home' --- even though the next Amendment specifically does. Or to self-defense.

Fact: you continue to fail to prove your case alleging I'm a "liar".

STILL more proof that M14 can only post frrom ignorance, emotion or dishonesty.

Sorry but read the writings of the founding fathers. Those writings prove their Original Intent and they disagree with your Militia claim.

 

[Pogo]

Fact:
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.

Fact: the first words of the Second Amendment are,
"“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

Fact: the Second Amendment makes no reference to the 'home' --- even though the next Amendment specifically does. Or to self-defense.

Fact: you continue to fail to prove your case alleging I'm a "liar".

STILL more proof that M14 can only post frrom ignorance, emotion or dishonesty.

Sorry but read the writings of the founding fathers. Those writings prove their Original Intent and they disagree with your Militia claim.

I stated what the initial clause of the 2A is. Is my quote inaccurate?

I stated that 2A makes no reference to "home" or "self-defense". Is that inaccurate?

Let's see the whole thing:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I do see "Militia"; I don't see "home" and I don't see "self-defense".

What am I missing?

 

[Ringel05]

Fact: the first words of the Second Amendment are,
"“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

Fact: the Second Amendment makes no reference to the 'home' --- even though the next Amendment specifically does. Or to self-defense.

Fact: you continue to fail to prove your case alleging I'm a "liar".

STILL more proof that M14 can only post frrom ignorance, emotion or dishonesty.

Sorry but read the writings of the founding fathers. Those writings prove their Original Intent and they disagree with your Militia claim.

I stated what the initial clause of the 2A is. Is my quote inaccurate?

I stated that 2A makes no reference to "home" or "self-defense". Is that inaccurate?

Let's see the whole thing:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I do see "Militia"; I don't see "home" and I don't see "self-defense".

What am I missing?

Original Intent.........

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

Or as Madison framed it:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison
Notice Madison clarified what was intended by the founders.

I could go on and on.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Fact:
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.

That is not a fact.

Do you know what a fact is?

Not only POTUS but the founding fathers in their writings completely disagree with you....... Funny that.........

You meant SCOTUS, right?

You are correct with regard to them. The SCOTUS has INTERPRETED the USC to include individuals and self defense.

But....you are hopeless and hapless when it comes to the "founding fathers". You don't have a fucking clue what they meant.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Fact:
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.

Fact: the first words of the Second Amendment are,
"“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

Fact: the Second Amendment makes no reference to the 'home' --- even though the next Amendment specifically does. Or to self-defense.

Fact: you continue to fail to prove your case alleging I'm a "liar".

STILL more proof that M14 can only post frrom ignorance, emotion or dishonesty.

Sorry but read the writings of the founding fathers. Those writings prove their Original Intent and they disagree with your Militia claim.

Your understanding of what they wrote is juvenile at best.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry but read the writings of the founding fathers. Those writings prove their Original Intent and they disagree with your Militia claim.

I stated what the initial clause of the 2A is. Is my quote inaccurate?

I stated that 2A makes no reference to "home" or "self-defense". Is that inaccurate?

Let's see the whole thing:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I do see "Militia"; I don't see "home" and I don't see "self-defense".

What am I missing?

Original Intent.........

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

Or as Madison framed it:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison
Notice Madison clarified what was intended by the founders.

I could go on and on.

Ah but I wasn't posting to their intent -- I was posting to M14 Fabricator's intent when he posited:

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.

Your final quote from Madison is helpful. It serves to affirm the point of the NYT editorial.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read......please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/o...ear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Fact:
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.

Fact: the first words of the Second Amendment are,
"“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

A "fact" that is irrelevant to the conversation, something you know.
Thank you for proving your dishonesty - I knew you'd do it eventually.

 

[Ringel05]

Fact: the first words of the Second Amendment are,
"“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

Fact: the Second Amendment makes no reference to the 'home' --- even though the next Amendment specifically does. Or to self-defense.

Fact: you continue to fail to prove your case alleging I'm a "liar".

STILL more proof that M14 can only post frrom ignorance, emotion or dishonesty.

Sorry but read the writings of the founding fathers. Those writings prove their Original Intent and they disagree with your Militia claim.

Your understanding of what they worts is juvenile at best.

Prove me wrong.

See the post above this one I'm responding to....... Worts? Sorry, I speak English.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read......please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/o...ear-arms-means-this.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Fact:
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.

That is not a fact.

Indeed it is.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

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.

To argue otherwise is to argue from ignorance or dishonesty.

 

[Ringel05]

I stated what the initial clause of the 2A is. Is my quote inaccurate?

I stated that 2A makes no reference to "home" or "self-defense". Is that inaccurate?

Let's see the whole thing:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I do see "Militia"; I don't see "home" and I don't see "self-defense".

What am I missing?

Original Intent.........

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

Or as Madison framed it:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison
Notice Madison clarified what was intended by the founders.

I could go on and on.

Ah but I wasn't posting to their intent -- I was posting to M14 Fabricator's intent when he posited:

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.

Your final quote from Madison is helpful. It serves to affirm the point of the NYT editorial.

What NYT editorial?

Oh and I did answer the rest, Original Intent is the key. So the inference is obvious given the intent of the founders. It does apply to self defense and home defense.

 

[Pogo]

Fact:
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.

Fact: the first words of the Second Amendment are,
"“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

A "fact" that is irrelevant to the conversation, something you know.
Thank you for proving your dishonesty - I knew you'd do it eventually.

"Irrelevant", is it?

You claimed "unconnected to a militia" and I pointed out that it is -- right there in the wording itself.

Who dishonest now, beeyatch?