The Second Amendment

Posted in the Blairsville Forum

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of232
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotta love how Right Wingers avoid the question of how to ignore the Constitution's language that the "right" to bear arms is directly related to a persons participation in a well regulated state militia intended to protect the state from invasion.
"Original Intent" flies out the window.
As a firearm owner - I would love a rational explanation to support my "right" to keep my firearms.
Instead, the responses are obvious and illogical attempts to compare the havoc created in one arena, with the havoc resulting from existing firearms laws, and/or failure to enforce same.
Ironically, you reap what you sow - Right Wingers passed laws protecting doctors from those "bad bad lawyers" who used to sue them for malpractice - then wonder why doctors can now kill patients with abandon.
Hey, even though Right Wingers cause millions to be killed by malpractice - at least now they can compare the numbers killed by doctors with the numbers killed by guns.
Here's an idea - let's make it easier to sue doctors, like it used to be, and you'll see an incentive not to kill their patients.
On the other hand, we could not regulate public health - Then we can compare the numbers killed by guns with the number killed by disease.
Wait, we could not regulate vehicle safety- then we can compare the numbers killed in car crashes with those killed by guns.
Boring.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post.
Ain't no damn government interfering with anyone's rights there by God - a Right Winger's Disneyland.
Gotta enjoy it when the table is turned on all the Right Wingers who proudly profess they:
- love the country - but won't pay taxes;
- love those wars- but won't enlist themselves or raise taxes to pay for them;
- hate criminals - but by God won't obey any laws they don't want to;
hate abortion - but won't pay to care for the poor, sick, single parent children that result;
- demand Constitutional rights - except for anyone who wants a different lifestyle, or has a different political or religious opinion.
Only the destruction of public education and its replacement by Fox Noise and "Brain Dead" TV, could result in a world where personal pleasure, greed, and egocentrism of epic proportion is considered "patriotic."
Boring.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Progressives study the writings of Christ, Mohammad, Aristotle, Kant, Tocqueville, Franklin, and Lincoln.
Republican's watch Jeff Foxworthy.
Can you imagine that anyone would become offended when mockery and ridicule are directed towards them, but it happens since someone has down rated your post and silently expressed offense. Good job.
Zoltar

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you imagine that anyone would become offended when mockery and ridicule are directed towards them, but it happens since someone has down rated your post and silently expressed offense. Good job.
Whenever I get those red lip icons, it always reminds me of those paraffin lips we used to buy as kids. Just wear them for awhile, then chew'em up.
UC VOTER

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Progressives study the writings of Christ, Mohammad, Aristotle, Kant, Tocqueville, Franklin, and Lincoln.
Republican's watch Jeff Foxworthy.
LMAO. Most of the so-called Progressives, who are nothing but commies with a new name, don't read past Harry Potter. You are so full of shit!
froggy

Maysville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

UC VOTER wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO. Most of the so-called Progressives, who are nothing but commies with a new name, don't read past Harry Potter. You are so full of shit!
Early to be drinking and so hostile ain't it, bitch?
hissss

Gillsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Learn your constitutional history! Real ignorant bunch here. The const. is a flexible document. The supreme court has reversed its decisions many time over the last 200 years to fit needs and conventions of the day. There are very few absolutes in it. This is very much like the bible, where people pick and choose parts if it to prove opposite points and seldom agree except that each thinks they are right. You can't speak of the constitution in such simple terms of what it says. The reality is it is what the justices say it is. That can be that corporations are people, guns are protected or not, slaves count as 2/3 of a man, seprate but equal, direct election of senators, women voting and so on. It is simply find a way to twist the document to fit the needs and wants of our times. Even the "strict constitutional justices" we supposedly have today are quite at odds with what the reading of the words 100 years ago. You all sounds like a bunch of fools arguing this. None of you are right though a few of you are wrong. That article about imposing slavery was just idiotic.
Informed Opinion

Cape Coral, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Zoltar wrote:
<quoted text>Whenever I get those red lip icons, it always reminds me of those paraffin lips we used to buy as kids. Just wear them for awhile, then chew'em up.
Loved those paraffin lips - can you imagine how happy we were to chew wax ?

Oh for that simple life.

I just wish the "Ratings" would show on the iPhone. That's all I have when things get really interesting.

Ah well.
Informed Opinion

Cape Coral, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hissss wrote:
Learn your constitutional history! Real ignorant bunch here. The const. is a flexible document. The supreme court has reversed its decisions many time over the last 200 years to fit needs and conventions of the day. There are very few absolutes in it. This is very much like the bible, where people pick and choose parts if it to prove opposite points and seldom agree except that each thinks they are right. You can't speak of the constitution in such simple terms of what it says. The reality is it is what the justices say it is. That can be that corporations are people, guns are protected or not, slaves count as 2/3 of a man, seprate but equal, direct election of senators, women voting and so on. It is simply find a way to twist the document to fit the needs and wants of our times. Even the "strict constitutional justices" we supposedly have today are quite at odds with what the reading of the words 100 years ago. You all sounds like a bunch of fools arguing this. None of you are right though a few of you are wrong. That article about imposing slavery was just idiotic.
Great points - well reasoned and obviously "reality based".

But - a little mean - at least we are attempting to discuss a complex matter as opposed to who should win American Idolatry (or whatever).
Oh my

Hiawassee, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hissss wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Learn your constitutional history!

...That article about imposing slavery was just idiotic.
Yes, being aware of history is very important to many discussions.

For example, in Colonial America (when America was a group of colonies) Slavery was legal and already imposed on society. As the article demonstrates the duty of militias in many states was to protect the slave holder by controlling the slave population.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm
...The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments. At the time, the southern states extensively regulated their militias and prescribed their slave control responsibilities. Second, the hidden history is important because it fundamentally changes how we think about the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.
Oh my

Hiawassee, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Zoltar wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever I get those red lip icons, it always reminds me of those paraffin lips we used to buy as kids. Just wear them for awhile, then chew'em up.
Yes, or characticatures of Mick Jagger.
Balderdash

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>

...The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments.

Balderdash and crapola.
Zoltar

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Feb 2, 2013
 
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, or characticatures of Mick Jagger.
Ah yes, Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones or as they are rererred to now, the Strolling Bones.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Balderdash wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g... (post1)
...When the Constitution was drafted, the States/Colonies did not have standing armies, instead each Colony had a militia, which was simply average citizens who owned their their own arms, and who would respond and defend the State/Colony when it's security was threatened under the control of the State/Colony government.

The Constitution therefore unequivocally links a person's right to keep and bear arms directly to that person's obligation to participate in the militia.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm
...The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Balderdash and crapola.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
The Militia
...It was natural, if not essential, for the leaders of the Revolution to glorify the citizen militia, for they were trying to rally a people without an army to war. Borrowing heavily from Whig ideology,[142] the revolutionaries sought to persuade themselves and the community that an army composed of armed citizens (farmers and tradesmen willing to grab a musket) would prevail over professional soldiers and mercenaries in service to King George.

...It is not hard to see why the states ultimately supported a standing army. The militia were untrained. "Musters were, after all, usually held but once a year; parading, drinking, and partying clearly took priority over target practice; and uniforms evoked far more passion and interest than musket fire," writes Michael A. Bellesiles.[157] The militia were undisciplined. They fired their muskets in camp, sometimes shooting at geese, sometimes to start campfires, sometimes at random for fun.[158] "Seldom a day passes but some persons are shot by their friends," Washington wrote in 1776.[159] Militiamen drank heavily, sometimes even drinking themselves into stupors in the midst of battle.[160] Worst of all, militia deserted in droves....When positioning their forces for battle, American commanders learned to not only place militia units between regular troops, but to station Continental soldiers behind the militia with orders to shoot the first militiamen to run.[167]

Most militiamen were not even good shots.[168] We think of men as having grown up with guns in colonial America.[169] We assume they were sharpshooters by necessity. Did not men have to become proficient with muskets to protect themselves from ruffians and Indians or to hunt to put food on the table? Contrary to myth, the answer, in the main, is no. In reality, few Americans owned guns.[170] When Michael A. Bellesiles reviewed more than a thousand probate records from frontier areas of northern New England and western Pennsylvania for the years 1765 to 1790, he found that although the records were so detailed that they listed items as small as broken cups, only fourteen percent of the household inventories included firearms and [Page 342] fifty-three percent of those guns were listed as not working.[171] In addition, few Americans hunted. Bellesiles writes: "From the time of the earliest colonial settlements, frontier families had relied on Indians or professional hunters for wild game, and the colonial assemblies regulated all forms of hunting, as did Britain's Parliament."[172]
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
The Militia
...The Founders, therefore, had a different view of the militia after the war than they had when the Revolution began. For many people, if not most, faith in the universal militia composed of the whole "body of the people" had been shattered. The post-war attitude is evident in The Federalist Number 29, written by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton defended the wisdom of placing the organization and discipline of the militia in the [Page 343] hands of Congress.[177] "What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen," Hamilton wrote.[178] However, were he to deliver his thoughts on the militia to the federal legislature,[179] he would offer the following views:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be real grievance to the people .... and would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country to an amount which ... would not fall far short of a million pounds .... The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need.[180]

Although everyone may not have agreed, this was the prevailing view.[181] After what had been learned in the war, it could not have been otherwise. Politicians continued to make Fourth of July speeches praising the militia. And anti-Federalists had their reasons for haranguing about how federal control over the [Page 344] militia would destroy a bulwark against tyranny. But in analyzing the events at the Richmond Convention and beyond, we need to keep both soapbox rhetoric designed to flatter an audience and the agenda of the anti-Federalists in perspective.
Colonel

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/ Bogus2.htm
The Militia
...The Founders, therefore, had a different view of the militia after the war than they had when the Revolution began. For many people, if not most, faith in the universal militia composed of the whole "body of the people" had been shattered. The post-war attitude is evident in The Federalist Number 29, written by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton defended the wisdom of placing the organization and discipline of the militia in the [Page 343] hands of Congress.[177] "What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen," Hamilton wrote.[178] However, were he to deliver his thoughts on the militia to the federal legislature,[179] he would offer the following views:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be real grievance to the people .... and would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country to an amount which ... would not fall far short of a million pounds .... The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need.[180]
Although everyone may not have agreed, this was the prevailing view.[181] After what had been learned in the war, it could not have been otherwise. Politicians continued to make Fourth of July speeches praising the militia. And anti-Federalists had their reasons for haranguing about how federal control over the [Page 344] militia would destroy a bulwark against tyranny. But in analyzing the events at the Richmond Convention and beyond, we need to keep both soapbox rhetoric designed to flatter an audience and the agenda of the anti-Federalists in perspective.

You are a different pair of shoes. You are some kind of a man, to begin with, and have an excellent brain and the worst manners conceivable. You contradict everything someone says, and look out for an argument as other people look for their dinner. You are a double-engined, high-speed pacifist, because you are the kind of cantankerous fellow who must always be in a minority.
So I sit docilely at your feet. The world is all crooked for you, and God has created you with two left hands. But you do have merits; you can spout poetry about the things you post here. If you had been in my battalion I could have made a soldier out of you.
shoop

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

This is a hypothetical situation.

You find yourself alone on a uninhabited,unknown,ungoverned island.

A bad person lands and has tried to kill you.
Do you have a right to kill this person?
From where does this right arise?
Liberal

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

shoop wrote:
This is a hypothetical situation.
You find yourself alone on a uninhabited,unknown,ungoverned island.
A bad person lands and has tried to kill you.
Do you have a right to kill this person?
From where does this right arise?

That's a very difficult question to answer; but if one believes in a liberal point of view, the answer should be easy.
Zoltar

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

shoop wrote:
This is a hypothetical situation.
You find yourself alone on a uninhabited,unknown,ungoverned island.
A bad person lands and has tried to kill you.
Do you have a right to kill this person?
From where does this right arise?
If that person is a beautiful woman, I would first try to reason with her in hopes that together we could form a more perfect union er uh, government.

If I failed to convince her, I would then hit her over the head with a coconut, purely in sefl defense. I would then move to ban all coconuts even though coconuts don't kille people.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Colonel wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
You are a different pair of shoes. You are some kind of a man, to begin with, and have an excellent brain and the worst manners conceivable. You contradict everything someone says, and look out for an argument as other people look for their dinner. You are a double-engined, high-speed pacifist, because you are the kind of cantankerous fellow who must always be in a minority.

So I sit docilely at your feet. The world is all crooked for you, and God has created you with two left hands. But you do have merits; you can spout poetry about the things you post here. If you had been in my battalion I could have made a soldier out of you.
Obviously those who dissent should know their place, espiecally in an open discussion on a public forum, and particularly if their views are in the minority. Unfortunately for you, Colonel, you are no longer commanding a battalion where you can keep a lid on dissent and pass judgement on those beneath you. Welcome to the world of the ill-mannered ordianry citizen participating in a democracy.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of232
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

43 Users are viewing the Blairsville Forum right now

Search the Blairsville Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
GA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 6 min wondering out loud 47,786
Super Gary Steppe Union Schools wants Pay raise 2 hr Senior Response 9
BRMEMC New manager? 2 hr Just a Thought 18
Union County Development Authority 2 hr not giving up 4
psychics 2 hr BO BO 2
Where Is YOUR SPLOST MONEY Going? 17 hr Paraprofessional 198
GA Who do you support for Governor in Georgia in 2... (Oct '10) Fri Mason II 2,039
•••
•••

Blairsville News Video

•••
•••

Blairsville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Blairsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Blairsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Blairsville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••