Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#22 Feb 17, 2013
Even if everyone in the world except you were wrong as you believe, people, state and federal government are all clearly defined and given powers and duties. The people and the state are not interchangeable. The National Guard as I'm sure you know didn't exist when the Constitution was written so they did not mean the National Guard and even from the simple rules of English the operative clause is people not militia. State and people are not interchangeable in Democracy.
Earl

Troy, VA

#23 Feb 17, 2013
Jack_4ral wrote:
<quoted text>It will be so much better, we can go back to the days of Bush/Cheney/Republicans and enjoy the fruits of Recession/Depression. Get Real.
What do you have now???
Earl

Troy, VA

#24 Feb 17, 2013
Chief63 wrote:
Even if everyone in the world except you were wrong as you believe, people, state and federal government are all clearly defined and given powers and duties. The people and the state are not interchangeable. The National Guard as I'm sure you know didn't exist when the Constitution was written so they did not mean the National Guard and even from the simple rules of English the operative clause is people not militia. State and people are not interchangeable in Democracy.
DUH!
check the facts

Chesapeake, OH

#25 Feb 18, 2013
Jack.... ALL semi-auto weapons? Really? You claim to support the 2nd amendment, and then strangle it in the same paragraph? You sound just like Obama and all of his cronies in DC... You support the 2nd amendment about as much as notebook paper supports concrete..
No Drugs

Troy, VA

#26 Feb 18, 2013
Jacks last name is ""Off"".
1 post removed
Jack_4ral

Charleston, WV

#28 Feb 18, 2013
"We the People of the United States."
"We the People of the State of West Virginia."
By Cass R. Sunstein
The rise of the Second Amendment as a serious obstacle to gun control legislation is astonishingly recent.
Here's a quick way to see how rapidly things have changed. Warren Burger was a conservative Republican, appointed chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was only "to ensure that the 'state armies''the militia' would be maintained for the defense of the state."
On MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, Burger said the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud I repeat the word 'fraud' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." Burger wasn't in the habit of taking stands on controversial constitutional questions on national television. In using the word "fraud," Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus about the meaning of the Constitution.
To understand what Burger was thinking, consider the words of the Second Amendment: "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." Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous. Sure, it could fairly be read to support an individual right to have guns. But in light of the preamble, with its reference to a well-regulated militia, it could also be read not to confer an individual right, but to protect federalism, by ensuring that the new national government wouldn't interfere with citizen militias at the state level.
Until remarkably recently, almost all federal judges have agreed. It is striking that before its 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court had never held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns.
For almost seven decades, the court's leading decision was U.S. vs. Miller. The 1939 case involved a ban on the possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Sounding like Burger, the court unanimously said that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of" the militia. Without evidence that the possession of a sawed-off shotgun was related to preservation of a well-regulated militia, the court refused to say that the Second Amendment protected the right to have such a weapon.
For decades, federal courts overwhelmingly rejected the conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It wasn't until the 21st century that lower federal courts, filled with appointees of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, started to adopt the individual rights position. And, of course, the Supreme Court itself adopted that view in 2008, by a 5-4 vote.
More important still, the Supreme Court has proceeded cautiously, and it has pointedly refused to shut the door to all gun regulation. On the contrary, the court said, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
To this the court added that the sorts of weapons it was protecting were those "in common use at the time" that the Second Amendment was ratified. We should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established, but a lot of gun-control legislation, imaginable or proposed, would be perfectly consistent with the court's rulings.
It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives.
hmmm

Charleston, WV

#29 Feb 18, 2013
People act like we don't still have enemies in the world. It has never been our very well trained and powerful armies that have protected us from a boots on the ground invasion, it has always been and should still be the armed peoples of america. Why are russia and china so excited to see these laws? If the second was not for the people why were there laws requiring citizens,(because we are not just civilians, we are citizens) to carry their side-arm?
Hagatha May

Orlando, FL

#30 Feb 18, 2013
Possums, You should all be disarmed. America does not need a bunch of ignorant hillbillies from appalachia hoarding guns. Most of you cannot put 2 and 2 together, and the rest are strung out on drugs or so mentally deficient from inbreeding it's not funny. Just watch the Wrong Turn movies about the inbred misfits in WV. Wrong Turn 5 is out and 6 is in the works,seems America just can't get enough of the freaks there in the hills. Now if you used the guns on each other then I would be inclined to be in favor of it. Possums,ignorance and poverty abounds there as well as drug and alcohol dependancy. Adding more guns to the mix is just asking for disaster. TaTa for now Lady of Quality

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#31 Feb 19, 2013
Jack, I understand you want it to be true, but the article is nonsense. First of all I have sighted Supreme Court cases since the early 30's that prove the article is incorrect and second one of your standard stump line was the courts have been perverted don't believe them, now you want us to believe what a Justice said. So is your point to believe the ones that agree with you and disregard the decisions of the rest? You are a walking contradiction. The Founding Fathers were clear in their writings, you may not agree with them or the second amendment, but it's purpose cannot be disputed.
Linsey

Troy, VA

#32 Feb 19, 2013
Hagatha May wrote:
Possums, You should all be disarmed. America does not need a bunch of ignorant hillbillies from appalachia hoarding guns. Most of you cannot put 2 and 2 together, and the rest are strung out on drugs or so mentally deficient from inbreeding it's not funny. Just watch the Wrong Turn movies about the inbred misfits in WV. Wrong Turn 5 is out and 6 is in the works,seems America just can't get enough of the freaks there in the hills. Now if you used the guns on each other then I would be inclined to be in favor of it. Possums,ignorance and poverty abounds there as well as drug and alcohol dependancy. Adding more guns to the mix is just asking for disaster. TaTa for now Lady of Quality
If we can't put 2 and two together we will fall into the same category as you??? That is what you are saying.
Linsey

Troy, VA

#33 Feb 19, 2013
Chief63 wrote:
Jack, I understand you want it to be true, but the article is nonsense. First of all I have sighted Supreme Court cases since the early 30's that prove the article is incorrect and second one of your standard stump line was the courts have been perverted don't believe them, now you want us to believe what a Justice said. So is your point to believe the ones that agree with you and disregard the decisions of the rest? You are a walking contradiction. The Founding Fathers were clear in their writings, you may not agree with them or the second amendment, but it's purpose cannot be disputed.
They voted Obama in the second time!!!!! Does that tell you anything??? I have a nice bridge over the San Francisco Bay for sale cheap. After You buy it I will have it painted for you???? Chep! Cash only.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#34 Feb 19, 2013
Chief, the purpose cannot be disputed. http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-seco...

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#35 Feb 19, 2013
Lol, I think you better google truth. I do not interpret the writings of the founding fathers for my purpose, I am quite fluent in the King's English and understand clearly by reading, there is no need for interpretation unless you are trying to prove a false point. So again to point out the duality of your argument. You have stated that you support the second amendment does this mean you support slavery?
Lula

Troy, VA

#36 Feb 19, 2013
Jack lacks brevity when trying to get a point across. Perhaps an effective writing course would be in order.
Lula

Troy, VA

#37 Feb 19, 2013
Chief63 wrote:
Lol, I think you better google truth. I do not interpret the writings of the founding fathers for my purpose, I am quite fluent in the King's English and understand clearly by reading, there is no need for interpretation unless you are trying to prove a false point. So again to point out the duality of your argument. You have stated that you support the second amendment does this mean you support slavery?
No! But I do.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#38 Feb 20, 2013
Chief, I do not support slavery of any kind. I do not support slavery of my fellow Man, I do not support slavery of our most cherish Citizen,Women, I do not support slavery of our Posterity,Children and I sure an Hell do not support Corporate slavery. I do support keeping and bearing Arms per States rights as numerated by our U.S. Constitution. I do not support the 2nd Amendment as a means of overthrowing the Government of "We The People". The 2nd Amendment to control slaves is well documented by History. You can read the 2nd anyway you want, but the subject of the 2nd will always remain the same, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The NRA has picked 5 words from the 2nd, "The right to bear Arms". Why not pick out "Shall not be infringed"? Can you see the Motto of the NRA as "Shall not be infringed". Is the meaning of the 2nd, "Shall not be infringed"? The subject of the 2nd Amendment is not, "Shall not be infringed". It is also not "The right to bear Arms". It is as it is written, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The meaning of "Militia" is obsolete as per the meaning when written, as is the type of common Arms at that time, Muskets and flint lock pistols. The modern day general public Arms are bolt action rifles, single shot guns and revolvers with a mixture of simi-auto rifles and pistols. I feel very save with my bolt action, single shot rifles, pump and single shot shot guns and revolvers. I the U.S. Military knocks on my door, I can assure you I will not greet them with a firearm. Chief, lit me assure you that I consider your opinions as if they were my own.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#39 Feb 21, 2013
CBS and MSNBC did not exist when the first amendment was written, neither did Topix or Facebook. Are they exempt from its protection? If you want to go grammar on me, you are correct about the subject, now look up operative clause. The right belongs to the people, when the founding fathers said people they meant people, when they meant state they said state and when the meant federal government they said federal government. Are you implying that in his first inaugural address when George Washington said it was the duty of every citizen to own a firearm (paraphrased, I don't have the speech memorized) he really meant the state? Given the fact that the founding fathers had very recently overthrown a sitting government by armed insurrection, I suspect it may have been on the minds of one or two of them at least.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#40 Feb 22, 2013
FDR said a Chicken in every pot. Do you believe that it's every Citizen's duty to own a firearm to protect our Nation against the British? Did he mean the State? The 2nd Amendment does. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free STATE. Must have been on someone's mind, Bush did call up a few well regulated State Guard units.
Patriot

Troy, VA

#41 Feb 22, 2013
The right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is pretty clear to me. I need no interpitation. I have a cy. of the Constitution in front of me as I post.
Patriot

Troy, VA

#42 Feb 22, 2013
By the way it doesn't mention single shot or 30 shot clips. It is clear we can keep our guns and it will not be infringed. Obama will have an end run around the Constitution by signing an international agreement giving the UN international control over gun ownership. He won't have to take the guns he will just sign an international agreement that will control future gun legislation. The US will probably be the only country that will be held accountable.The International community will be happy to have gun control over the US and Obama knows that very fact.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Charleston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
KCEAAKCE Town Hall 1 hr Concerned Citizen 1
Band At the Barrel last weekend 1 hr Boodaddy 6
Girl arrested with dead cats sings at Town Center 1 hr Yum yum 2
Moses Skaff 2 hr Sandlover 1
Create your own Forum (Jun '15) 3 hr Joe Budrow 4,015
Poll Do racist people go to heaven? (Jul '13) 3 hr Joe Budrow 78
Ric Flair dead in single car accident (Jun '13) 4 hr Wvphoto 94

Charleston Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Charleston Mortgages