See post #80. From here on out, let's do a little poll, and determine the results by the number of likes that our posts get. People who agree with me, let's see your like. People who agree with Dagosa, feel free to "like" him.....
WOWSER!!! I like that post, not because it refutes the ideas of the poster you responded to (which it does) but because it so eloquently states what I try so hard to say and fail. Thank you for your words and for the job you do!
Based on my 80 years of life and the 70 years of using and acquiring firearms (walked into a store and bought a shotgun at 10 with no outside assistance; just me on my own. In those years of understanding that there is no value in using restrictive gun control for law abiding citizens. Criminal proliferation tells us is NOT IN THE LEAST effective to OVER CONTROL law abiding citizens owning firearms. I agree with background checks, to ensure known criminals and deeply mentally defective individuals can be denied the privilege of acquiring firearms. Beyond that gun control does nothing to protect our citizenry from gun violence. Many sources tell us categorically that this is true. In MY OPINION, most of those clamoring for restrictive gun control are unconsciously (or consciously) aware that they may be prone to do gun violence and transferring that fear onto others who are generally not prone to violence.
And there is where you're wrong. The founding fathers knew and wer fans of a primitive multi shot gun that existed then. They also allowed cannons to be in the hands of private citizens. Now if you're honest you'll realize that the AR 15 isn't as powerful as a cannon.
Only well regulated militia are specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State. Why so much fallacy of false Cause through diversion, from gun lovers?
Why so much poor English ? Do you not know that the people have a right to keep and bear Arms, and this right shall not be infringed ? The Militia has no Rights, only the authority to act on behalf of Government enforcing the lawful orders thereof. Also, people do not love guns, guns are as any other tools.
Why project so much? The People are the Militia. Any more fallacies of composition you want to try to advance?
Ha ha Both the Cannon and the musket were relatively ineffective unless fired in volleys In ranks all at once. I was on the cannon crew for our militia reenactment company. When competing with other companies, the winner was declared of the crew that hit "any target". Hitting your own was highly unusual. Power has less to do with Effectiveness. It's firepower, reliability, accuracy and weight. . When you consider what warfare was "really like" during Rev. War on a rainy day, a charge by a company of men with pikes and bayonet were more effective then misfiring muskets. The real advantage of musket was their reloading speed and like a shot gun, you threw anything into the muzzle if you ran out. That's why the 2a is written as it was. Arms are just about anything you can carry to kill or maim with and It's not, fire-arms. "Self defense" was indeed a group afare as well. Unless you were one who had several rifles ( not muskets) which were very expensive, you weren't faring well if you were by yourself. A modern firearm vs Revolutionary war weapons ? You have to be kidding me. You just wait for a heavy rain, walk in with an AR and everyone else is essentially unarmed. The 2a was written nearly 100 years before the cartridge became the norm. Even "frighteners", axes or large hatchets, were regulated by fines back then. If you go by what the our founding fathers actually regulated, they regulated some weapons just becasue they were made to intimidate people. It is then backed by precedent to sometimes regulate for having a weapon that "looked frightening" . So, just regulating semi autos that "look like" assault weapons, IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Deal with it.
Dagosa, those are your wrong opinions, not facts. Please stay in your beloved U.K. where even thought & flatulence, is well regulated..
You are projecting your false opinions, while people may compose the Armed forces and Militia, The People have the right to keep and bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed. The Militia has no right to keep and bear arms, as it is under the color of authority.
We fought for the colonials.....guess what. The politics of the time ? The conservatives sided with the British. It was the liberals who lead the revolt and did most of the fighting initially. Benedict Arnold was conservative ! Make no doubt about it.
The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There are no rights in Private property secured by our Second Article of Amendment. That is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance of the law.
It's obvious your attempt at sounding knowledgable is just that. Many of us are much more knowledge of the actual conditons surrounding the time the 2a was written. We lived it for years and studied those times to give authenticity to the educational experience we portrayed to others. You just make stuff up. All Supreme Court decisions have had the same thing in common relative to the 2a. It isn't just the last 14 words, it's all in context and "regulation" is as much a part of self defense as the right to bear arms...not firearms. Scalia emphasizes that, as the times and weapons change, the rulings may as well to conform to the technology and the will of the majority. Keep miss stating the 2a and you keep reminding people how little informed you are with respect to the constitution.
" "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." See ??? If you can read, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, or it would have read; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Throughout the constitution the term "the people" is used. Funny how in the 2A people try to say it means something different.
do you advocate that the government infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms? if so that makes you an enemy of the constitution. are you even a citizen of the United States? - - - Updated - - - liberal and conservative are meaningless terms in a vacuum. You are a supporter of more governmental control. we are supporters of more freedom. We side with the founders, you side with the tories
The People are the Militia. Any other fallacies you want to try to advance? - - - Updated - - - Are you claiming the People are not the Militia? Funny how in the 2A, gun lovers merely resort to fallacy.
Liberal and conservative is not meaningless. Conservatives by the non political definition are adverse to change, are literally fearful of it and don't trust advance thinking including more education and the scientific method. They tend to believe in their " religion" as a solution and not religious freedom as a solution which our more liberal constitution stressed. No, Benedict Arnold WAS conservative. The party names varied but the core of conservatism vs liberalism remains in tact. It continues today. The conservative trend is to bash institutes of higher learning, science and put their faith in a magic man in the sky for real solutions to real problems. That a liberal would use a reference NASA or John's Hopkins and a conservative would use Faux, the NRA and Heritage foundations, organization's who admittedly push the conservative agenda over the search for truth, tells it all. Again, Benadict Arnold was a traitor to the cause of the Revolution. He was a conservative.
Yes, and based on research one of the most important reasons the founders had for ARMS was their fear of government becoming tyrannical; thus the need FOR MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS UPGRADED WITH THE REST OF SOCIETY. - - - Updated - - - The AR-15 is NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON as sold in the US, ESPECIALLY because it is only semi-automatic.
I'm claiming exactly what I said..... that throughout the entire constitution it is clear who "the people" are.
