[HerrGlock]

http://crosscut.com/2012/12/24/crime...amendment-rig/

[bigchuck83]

some of the comments below that (anit gun propaganda) article were great.

[Dragoon44]

There is no authority under the constitution for individuals to have guns.

Uh, guess what stupid, the Supreme Court of the United States says that that is precisely what the 2nd Amendment means.

[EODLRD]

.....

[Fox]

Much of the newsmedia is a propaganda machine for the Left. One of the reasons for this is that Leftist students are not seeking careers in business (capitalism). Rather they seek a position that will enable them to change the world. Thus many of them seek employment in journalism and education.

[sjfrellc]

Originally Posted by bigchuck83

some of the comments below that (anit gun propaganda) article were great.

You sir are right.


"Since the recent school shooting, there is a daily op-ed piece that purports to spell out what the 2nd Amendment means. Many writers wax poetic about the tragedy and how the amendment is being misinterpreted by the NRA.

Here is the cold hard fact: the militia is NOT a governmental body. This amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because some signatories felt there were issues that needed to be spelled out, in detail. They feared that the federal government would overstep its bounds, and there needed to be a check in place to prevent that. The militia was never intended to be answerable to the federals. The National Guard is NOT the militia, contrary to what little the writer knows on this subject.

And the "well regulated" has nothing to do with the federal government putting restrictions on the militia. Regulations were lists or codes drawn up by militia bodies, as to acceptable behavior, the maintenance of equipment, and what training and equipment militiamen were expected to have.

The repeated calls for bans on semi-auto, "military style" rifles? According the amendment, militia men are to be equipped with military arms. Does that mean cannons and anti-aircraft missiles? YES. Do most private organizations have the wherewithal to purchase such weapons? No. But certainly mortars and portable rockets would be within their reach. They were not intended to be a standing army, but a less formal organization, to show up on short notice. More like Apaches, Sioux, or Viet Cong, less like the First Infantry Division.

Sound crazy? Remember, militia men would still be subject to local laws and civil litigation if they misbehaved. And regulations would require those militia arms to be kept secure until such time as they were needed, not stashed under a bed or in a car trunk.

This goes beyond any SCOTUS ruling. Politicians and special interest groups, that think they can simply OUTLAW violence, will be around for a long time. But the Bill of Rights was written for a specific purpose. If one believes that narrow interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will further their political agendas, remember, the other amendments can be re-interpreted along the same lines. It's been said that people should only be able to purchase muskets, in line with the 18th century, so it's not a stretch to say that the First Amendment only applies †o printed or spoken words, and not †he internet. Or that quartering troops does not apply to paramilitary organizations. Or that trial without cross-examination of witnesses or evidence should be acceptable. Short term interests will be the undoing of our country if such is the case."— RonMcDonald

[sjfrellc]

"The right to keep and bear arms is not granted to Americans in the U.S. Constitution, nor in the “Bill of Rights.” The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, inextricably linked to the right to life.
The Second Amendment recognizes this. It does not say that the right “shall be granted” to anyone. It assumes the right already exists and says it “shall not be infringed.”-- Thomas Mullen


Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.c...#ixzz2G7JMqzqK

[neilsmth]

The first amendment does much more harm. Lies become the truth if told loud enough and long enough. Teaching is as bad because the young minds don't have a basis in truth to be able to ferret out the lies until it's too late. If there had been a dozen journalists at the Sandy Hook school, none would have been able to stop the killing. Rant off.

[Bowguy]

Originally Posted by HerrGlock

http://crosscut.com/2012/12/24/crime...amendment-rig/

Ahh yes, another wolf in sheep's clothing. Interesting how these anti-gun Libs can twist facts to fit their desires.

Please arm yourself with facts with regard to how the courts have expressed thier findings. Your argument is flawed and has failed.

[JLB768]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

Uh, guess what stupid, the Supreme Court of the United States says that that is precisely what the 2nd Amendment means.

And those first three words of the Preamble spell it out loud and clear as well...We the People. Who are the people? Every American citizen. It's funny how some try to focus on militia, and ignore "the right of the people".

[Spiffums]

The 2nd Amendment does not give a right it protects a God given right from government interference.

[NEOH212]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That seems pretty damn clear to me!

[engineer151515]

If any Supreme Court decision needs correcting, it's the recent Obamacare bull**** in which the Supreme Court Chief Justice re-wrote the law in order for it to pass Constitutional muster.

[cowboywannabe]

doesnt even matter what the supreme court says, its already been determined that "the people" when refered to in the bill of rights means individuals.

you have the right to freedom of speech as an individual, not only as a group. same for all your other rights.

[certifiedfunds]

So, I’ve grown up with a healthy respect for guns. When my father died, we sold or gave away 32 firearms. I kept one .22 rifle for myself.

If the above is true, I doubt seriously you have the "healthy respect for guns and the second amendment" you claim.

I wouldn't dream of getting rid of a father's gun.

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by cowboywannabe

doesnt even matter what the supreme court says, its already been determined that "the people" when refered to in the bill of rights means individuals.

you have the right to freedom of speech as an individual, not only as a group. same for all your other rights.

I disagree, it does matter what the SCOTUS says. Until SCOTUS rules the issue is up for grabs. since Heller the issues of whether the 2nd amendment right applies to individuals is now settled law. And the court made it clear that the right was NOT dependent on service in a militia.

McDonald say the 2nd amendment incorporated against the states which previously it had not been.

[Comrade Bork]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

I disagree, it does matter what the SCOTUS says. Until SCOTUS rules the issue is up for grabs. since Heller the issues of whether the 2nd amendment right applies to individuals is now settled law. And the court made it clear that the right was NOT dependent on service in a militia.

McDonald say the 2nd amendment incorporated against the states which previously it had not been.

Also, SCotUS has ruled that the Nat'l Guard is NOT "the militia".

"Perpich vs Dept. of Defense".

He got Heller wrong, McDonald wrong, Perpich makes 3 strikes & your out.

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by Comrade Bork

Also, SCotUS has ruled that the Nat'l Guard is NOT "the militia".

"Perpich vs Dept. of Defense".

He got Heller wrong, McDonald wrong, Perpich makes 3 strikes & your out.

Good catch, I didn't know about Perpich.

[427]

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[cowboywannabe]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

I disagree, it does matter what the SCOTUS says. Until SCOTUS rules the issue is up for grabs. since Heller the issues of whether the 2nd amendment right applies to individuals is now settled law. And the court made it clear that the right was NOT dependent on service in a militia.

McDonald say the 2nd amendment incorporated against the states which previously it had not been.

again i poorly stated the case, but you helped me inadvertantly.

the scotus already decided that it is an individual right. now it doesnt matter what they say.

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by cowboywannabe

again i poorly stated the case, but you helped me inadvertantly.

the scotus already decided that it is an individual right. now it doesnt matter what they say.

Ahhh gotcha, then I most certainly agree with you.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

Ahhh gotcha, then I most certainly agree with you.

Jeez. All this I just got and youse two are shaking hands?

What on earth is happening to GNG? STOP THIS AGREEING ****!

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

Uh, guess what stupid, the Supreme Court of the United States says that that is precisely what the 2nd Amendment means.

Yessireee, already been decided.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by Comrade Bork

Also, SCotUS has ruled that the Nat'l Guard is NOT "the militia".

What's really funny was there was no National guard till at least 100 years after the BOR was written.

[stevelyn]

Typical leftist, PoS history revisionist peddling faux Fudd credentials. He's either ignorant and doesen't know his history or he knows it very well and is purposely lying. Either way he is an enemy and needs to be treated as such.