quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
If you care than you are willing to do something about it.....something more substantial than paying lip service to caring.
And that "something" in order to have any impact starts with admitting that there needs to be a new "reading" of the Second.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
An understanding that "individual" can not be separated from "well regulated militia" in the understanding of the Second.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Failing that,the only other thing to do is scrap the whole thing and rewrite it with a clear understanding of modern society and the weapons that have been developed since the days of the musket.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

So you claim to have insight on the views of the writers of the Constitution ?

Well Mike, since I have read what they said about it, yes, I do have insight, and so do the courts, that is why they rule the way I say they should.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
We are going to lose the 2nd anyway so we should just give it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No right comes without some limits, yelling fire in a crowded theater for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
To pretend that this means there is no right to bear arms, a right, not a privilege for militia members.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Can't use stats but you can make claims like kids are dying in droves because you don't need stats to make the claim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
This is particularly true since your claim runs contrary to the facts.
It is your positions that undermine your argument. Until you admit that the 2nd is an individual right, as the people who wrote it insisted, you cannot be taken seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The claim that with the murder rate having gone so high that it will force the loss of the 2nd is only supported by a lack of statistics. Again if you pan attention to the facts you will see that we are in the midst of a dramatic DROP in all crime rates in particular gun crimes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The rational and mature thing would be for calls like yours and Mikes to decrease not to become more frantic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
am only dropping in to say this. I suspect there are many reasons why leftists (on the whole) don't like guns, and I strongly suspect one of them might be conservatives who are independent and self reliant.

if i am correct, then until that nugget is plumbed, a large part of the conversation occurs on a surface level with the two sides talking past each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Without reading the thread and it's attendant bullshit apologists for the second....I'm going to comment strictly on the video,rather than respond to the idiots.
First off,he met the criteria for comedy...he was fucking funny.
Second he was correct (while remaining funny)in his attack on the justifications for arming oneself ......gun enthusiasts rational for possessing an arsenal is full of holes .
Third I agree with him,go back to muskets and I'll buy mine

And Thanks for proving that the video the penguin brought to this discussion had nothing to do with being rational and everything to do with backing his irrational viewpoint...as well as your own.

So you didn't think it was funny
That's okay with me,humor is subjective and us disagreeing on that is no problem.
I will assert though that I ,being funny myself,have a greater sense of what is,and what is not ,funny than you do.
Now I'll sit back and wait to see how you decide to refute my assertion that he was indeed funny....that is what you were refuting,right ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The 2nd amendment states very clearly what and where are the limits of the militia.

Come on Jother, you know that isn't true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.

The modern day neighborhood watch would repel an invading foreign nation? Rampaging indians? Dealing with brigands? Some how, your 'understanding' of the militia is not even remotely true.

Militias were set up to handle two very distinctive issues:

1 ) Domestic Issues

The militia would be called up when local law enforcement could not handle a problem. Or that the problem required manpower rather than firepower. For example, a militia might be called up to help stop a forest fire or flood. Or to handle a local group of Indians that were terrorizing a local population. It could be called up to help other militias to handling one or more problems.

2 ) Foreign Invaders

competing nations, indians, pirates, the entire degree of hostiles, is the other portion of the militia's duties. The original thirteen had plenty of border space with unowned and unknown territory. One day it could be empty, the next an invading force. That the militia could be called up quickly help keep some events from turning truly ugly for the good citizens of the young nation.

"A well regulated militia..." is not some yahoo's with guns and an axe to grind with the government. They are a group that must uphold security and defense of the state. That military ranks were employed. So were rules and laws. That a person found in fault of one or more of these rules/laws would be penalized. Some of them did involve being shot to death.

"...for the security of a free state."

This was explained above.

"The right to bear arms...." had nothing to do with the individuals right to have a gun for any fucking reason. No, it was believed that if an enemy force could infiltrate into a town and blow up the arsenal, it would leave the town defenseless. But if individuals, part of that militia and in good standing had arms, they could not only defend the town, but quite possibly repel the invading force. An if you were charged with a crime, some of the penalizes did involve removing your arms from you.

"....shall not be infringe." This does not give you an unconditional right to a firearm free of law or regulation. Actually something....VERY...different. The belief was that if a civilian authority whom controlled the militia could direct it and control it, could they also order it to remove their arms? As a preemptive strike of tyranny? The answer was 'no'. That the militia would take a vote on the issue. And if it decided not to lay down its arms, it would not be penalized by it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmyc

What so many don't understand is how important guns, gas guzzlers and being free to hit your wife and girlfriend are to guys with little dicks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So if he must explain the meaning of "people" than perhaps you will take a shot at explaining the meaning of "a well regulated militia"

Mike I have explained this before but here we go again.
The militia didn't mean the national guard to them.
It was as they clearly stated in their writings the whole of the population, they even later passed the law stating that every male from 18 to 54 was part of the militia and could be called up EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PART OF A FORMAL MILITIA. Part of the "militia" was what today we would call neighborhood watch. We don't ignore it, we understand it. Look at it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a FREE state cannot stand alone.
Therefore shall not be infringed takes precedence.
You should also note that it does not say "the right to bear arms is a privilege of being in the militia".
It is defined as a right, not a privilege, if it only applied to members of the militia it would be a privilege.

The modern day neighborhood watch would repel an invading foreign nation? Rampaging indians? Dealing with brigands? Some how, your 'understanding' of the militia is not even remotely true.

Militias were set up to handle two very distinctive issues:

1 ) Domestic Issues

The militia would be called up when local law enforcement could not handle a problem. Or that the problem required manpower rather than firepower. For example, a militia might be called up to help stop a forest fire or flood. Or to handle a local group of Indians that were terrorizing a local population. It could be called up to help other militias to handling one or more problems.

2 ) Foreign Invaders

competing nations, indians, pirates, the entire degree of hostiles, is the other portion of the militia's duties. The original thirteen had plenty of border space with unowned and unknown territory. One day it could be empty, the next an invading force. That the militia could be called up quickly help keep some events from turning truly ugly for the good citizens of the young nation.

"A well regulated militia..." is not some yahoo's with guns and an axe to grind with the government. They are a group that must uphold security and defense of the state. That military ranks were employed. So were rules and laws. That a person found in fault of one or more of these rules/laws would be penalized. Some of them did involve being shot to death.

"...for the security of a free state."

This was explained above.

"The right to bear arms...." had nothing to do with the individuals right to have a gun for any fucking reason. No, it was believed that if an enemy force could infiltrate into a town and blow up the arsenal, it would leave the town defenseless. But if individuals, part of that militia and in good standing had arms, they could not only defend the town, but quite possibly repel the invading force. An if you were charged with a crime, some of the penalizes did involve removing your arms from you.

"....shall not be infringe." This does not give you an unconditional right to a firearm free of law or regulation. Actually something....VERY...different. The belief was that if a civilian authority whom controlled the militia could direct it and control it, could they also order it to remove their arms? As a preemptive strike of tyranny? The answer was 'no'. That the militia would take a vote on the issue. And if it decided not to lay down its arms, it would not be penalized by it.

The neighborhood watch is to fight crime, in case you are unaware of it criminals are brigands.
The rest is left wing rambling devoid of contact with reality and, contrary to your previous contention not part of the 2nd.
Also you just destroyed your argument.
If there is no penalty for a militia disbanding then the former members still have the right to keep their firearms, you just shot yourself in the foot, with and Uzi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmyc

What so many don't understand is how important guns, gas guzzlers and being free to hit your wife and girlfriend are to guys with little dicks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I'm not saying to give up. I'm saying that in so many years the issue will be irrelevant. So why stay on that path? If firearm ownership at the individual level is so important to you?


Joether you aren't saying give up? But you turn around and say why fight it since (in your opinion ) it will go away in any case.
Yes the entire document is that important to me.
Perhaps if I lived in the Peoples Republic of MA I would be wise enough to see that it is just a scrap of paper that means whatever we want it to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timmyc

What so many don't understand is how important guns, gas guzzlers and being free to hit your wife and girlfriend are to guys with little dicks.