BREAKING NEWS--CA--Another Mass Shooting

[Iceweasel]

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

They used the term "the people" for a reason. A militia isn't referred to as the people and the founders did express themselves. You're like the rest of the stupid ill informed liberals running around, you don't know jack shit but you think you're better informed than anyone in history. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what your feelings or thoughts are. I've got guns, you can't take them and your displeasure warms my heart.

I will agree in part: liberals are too emotional, arrogant and stupid to own firearms. We've seen how they lash out at the world when they don't get their way.

 

[Pogo]

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?

The link in post 363. It's what we're talking about here -- although barely...

 

[Pogo]

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

They used the term "the people" for a reason. A militia isn't referred to as the people and the founders did express themselves. You're like the rest of the stupid ill informed liberals running around, you don't know jack shit but you think you're better informed than anyone in history. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what your feelings or thoughts are. I've got guns, you can't take them and your displeasure warms my heart.

I will agree in part: liberals are too emotional, arrogant and stupid to own firearms. We've seen how they lash out at the world when they don't get their way.

Irony above in red...

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

The one that apparently carries more weight than established law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

You.

Its not MY claim that 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 -- it's established and settled law.

You know this,. You choose to disbelieve. This proves your dishonesty.

 

[Ringel05]

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



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

What NYT editorial?

The link in post 363. It's what we're talking about here -- although barely...

Not going to go back and read it. If they're taking the debunked Militia only claim then obviously they forgot their basic exercises in elementary school parsing.
Madison's statement is clear (if one understands the historical background and driving force behind the Amendment) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be taken away AND that the armed citizenry ALSO the comprise the militia.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

They used the term "the people" for a reason. A militia isn't referred to as the people and the founders did express themselves. You're like the rest of the stupid ill informed liberals running around, you don't know jack shit but you think you're better informed than anyone in history. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what your feelings or thoughts are. I've got guns, you can't take them and your displeasure warms my heart.

I will agree in part: liberals are too emotional, arrogant and stupid to own firearms. We've seen how they lash out at the world when they don't get their way.

Irony above in red...

You misspelled facts. Being a contentious asshole won't work.

 

[Pogo]

What NYT editorial?

The link in post 363. It's what we're talking about here -- although barely...

Not going to go back and read it. If they're taking the debunked Militia only claim then obviously they forgot their basic exercises in elementary school parsing.
Madison's statement is clear (if one understands the historical background and driving force behind the Amendment) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be taken away AND that the armed citizenry ALSO the comprise the militia.

It's the basis of this part of the thread. And it's not that long. Wave it off at your peril, for it puts you at a disadvantage.

 

[Pogo]

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?

You.

Its not MY claim that 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

Really.

Then who in the wide wide world of sports posted this, under your name:

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.

 

[Ringel05]

The link in post 363. It's what we're talking about here -- although barely...

Not going to go back and read it. If they're taking the debunked Militia only claim then obviously they forgot their basic exercises in elementary school parsing.
Madison's statement is clear (if one understands the historical background and driving force behind the Amendment) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be taken away AND that the armed citizenry ALSO the comprise the militia.

It's the basis of this part of the thread. And it's not that long. Wave it off at your peril, for it puts you at a disadvantage.

I was asking for a synopsis but......

 

[Pogo]

They used the term "the people" for a reason. A militia isn't referred to as the people and the founders did express themselves. You're like the rest of the stupid ill informed liberals running around, you don't know jack shit but you think you're better informed than anyone in history. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what your feelings or thoughts are. I've got guns, you can't take them and your displeasure warms my heart.

I will agree in part: liberals are too emotional, arrogant and stupid to own firearms. We've seen how they lash out at the world when they don't get their way.

Irony above in red...

You misspelled facts. Being a contentious asshole won't work.

Sorry, don't know how it is on Planet Ice but here, emotional value judgments are not "facts". Nor is ipse dixit.

 

[Pogo]

Not going to go back and read it. If they're taking the debunked Militia only claim then obviously they forgot their basic exercises in elementary school parsing.
Madison's statement is clear (if one understands the historical background and driving force behind the Amendment) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be taken away AND that the armed citizenry ALSO the comprise the militia.

It's the basis of this part of the thread. And it's not that long. Wave it off at your peril, for it puts you at a disadvantage.

I was asking for a synopsis but......

Already back there in the following post (364) -- or at least some excerpts I found pertinent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"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?

You.

Its not MY claim that 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

Really.

Yes. Really.

I cited my statement of fact; that you choose to act otherwise only serves to further prove your dishonesty.

Youdo not have to like the fact that 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, but, to remian intellectually honest, you must accept it.

Why do you refuse to accept said fact?

 

[Peach]

"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?

You.

Its not MY claim that 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

Really.

Then who in the wide wide world of sports posted this, under your name:

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.

Heller only applied to DC; see McDonald v. Chicago for the broader application. Still does not go as far as gun lovers believe however.

 

[Pogo]

You.

Its not MY claim that 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

Really.

Yes. Really.

I cited my statement of fact; that you choose to act otherwise only serves to further prove your dishonesty.

Youdo not have to like the fact that 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, but, to remian intellectually honest, you must accept it.

Why do you refuse to accept said fact?

What you did was excise out the part of my post that shows you to be a liar.

Here it is, restored:

"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?

You.

Its not MY claim that 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

Really.

Then who in the wide wide world of sports posted this, under your name:

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.

You'll notice what you claimed to have not said was exactly what you DID say.

Meanwhile you've called me a liar based on your own inability to find even a single post of mine calling for "gun control". I challenged you and you failed.

What level of dishonesty does it take to lie and then call the other party the liar -- liar?

 

[Ringel05]

The link in post 363. It's what we're talking about here -- although barely...

Not going to go back and read it. If they're taking the debunked Militia only claim then obviously they forgot their basic exercises in elementary school parsing.
Madison's statement is clear (if one understands the historical background and driving force behind the Amendment) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be taken away AND that the armed citizenry ALSO the comprise the militia.

It's the basis of this part of the thread. And it's not that long. Wave it off at your peril, for it puts you at a disadvantage.

Read it and he's wrong that is was intended only for use in a militia.

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

No mention of for militia use only.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

Again referencing self/home defense.

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

- Patrick Henry

This was in response to the Crown taking arms away from the colonists who had protected themselves from highwaymen, savage Indians and others that would do harm to person or property. Not referencing any militia.

I'll stop here for now.......

 

[Pogo]

Not going to go back and read it. If they're taking the debunked Militia only claim then obviously they forgot their basic exercises in elementary school parsing.
Madison's statement is clear (if one understands the historical background and driving force behind the Amendment) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be taken away AND that the armed citizenry ALSO the comprise the militia.

It's the basis of this part of the thread. And it's not that long. Wave it off at your peril, for it puts you at a disadvantage.

Read it and he's wrong that is was intended only for use in a militia.

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

No mention of for militia use only.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

Again referencing self/home defense.

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

- Patrick Henry

This was in response to the Crown taking arms away from the colonists who had protected themselves from highwaymen, savage Indians and others that would do harm to person or property. Not referencing any militia.

I'll stop here for now.......

Thanks, this seems more on point.

Your quotes are interesting food for thought, would that they were linked for their context but I'm wondering about the Patrick Henry quote on the end -- ?
Whence comes it? Or in other words, what was the dialogue that set this quote up as a contrast?

 

[Ringel05]

It's the basis of this part of the thread. And it's not that long. Wave it off at your peril, for it puts you at a disadvantage.

Read it and he's wrong that is was intended only for use in a militia.

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

No mention of for militia use only.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

Again referencing self/home defense.

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

- Patrick Henry

This was in response to the Crown taking arms away from the colonists who had protected themselves from highwaymen, savage Indians and others that would do harm to person or property. Not referencing any militia.

I'll stop here for now.......

Thanks, this seems more on point.

Your quotes are interesting food for thought, would that they were linked for their context but I'm wondering about the Patrick Henry quote on the end -- ? Whence comes it?

They come from multiple sources, the Federalist Papers, the writings of Patric Henry, letters written by Thomas Jefferson, etc.
I have them (the quotes) all saved from years ago when I was researching this same question, most of which I typed in from reading the documents I had in my library.

 

[Pogo]

Read it and he's wrong that is was intended only for use in a militia.

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

No mention of for militia use only.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

Again referencing self/home defense.

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

- Patrick Henry

This was in response to the Crown taking arms away from the colonists who had protected themselves from highwaymen, savage Indians and others that would do harm to person or property. Not referencing any militia.

I'll stop here for now.......

Thanks, this seems more on point.

Your quotes are interesting food for thought, would that they were linked for their context but I'm wondering about the Patrick Henry quote on the end -- ? Whence comes it?

They come from multiple sources, the Federalist Papers, the writings of Patric Henry, letters written by Thomas Jefferson, etc.
I have them (the quotes) all saved from years ago when I was researching this same question, most of which I typed in from reading the documents I had in my library.

Right but I'm wondering what the context is; what dialogue preceded this statement, i.e. what point was Patrick Henry countering with this?

(Actually context is always crucial in quotes; the editorial made that point.)

 

[Ringel05]

Thanks, this seems more on point.

Your quotes are interesting food for thought, would that they were linked for their context but I'm wondering about the Patrick Henry quote on the end -- ? Whence comes it?

They come from multiple sources, the Federalist Papers, the writings of Patric Henry, letters written by Thomas Jefferson, etc.
I have them (the quotes) all saved from years ago when I was researching this same question, most of which I typed in from reading the documents I had in my library.

Right but I'm wondering what the context is; what dialogue preceded this statement, i.e. what point was Patrick Henry countering with this?

(Actually context is always crucial in quotes; the editorial made that point.)

It was a long time ago and yes, context is everything. Unfortunately I don't remember so I'll have to try and find the whole dialog on the internet, my library is still in storage.