Comments
1 - 20 of 232 Comments Last updated Mar 7, 2013
First Prev
of 12
Next Last
Informed Opinion

Portland, OR

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

Judged:

1

1

1

Amendment II

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.

Here's the rub:

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.

Any other reading renders the language "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", which is 50% of the entire Amendment, meaningless. Any lawyer would tell you that interpretation would conflict with all rules of interpretation for statutes and laws.

As a result - no militia - no right to keep and bear arms.

Anyway,a a lifetime NRA member, I like the right to keep and bear arms interpreted liberally, so I keep my AR-15, Glock 40 cal., SPAS 12, Remington 700, etc., but is it the result of the Constitution, or simply pure political power ?
ComeSeeMe

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
Amendment II
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.
Here's the rub:
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.
Any other reading renders the language "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", which is 50% of the entire Amendment, meaningless. Any lawyer would tell you that interpretation would conflict with all rules of interpretation for statutes and laws.
As a result - no militia - no right to keep and bear arms.
Anyway,a a lifetime NRA member, I like the right to keep and bear arms interpreted liberally, so I keep my AR-15, Glock 40 cal., SPAS 12, Remington 700, etc., but is it the result of the Constitution, or simply pure political power ?

Come and see me., I'll let my ar-15 answer your question.
Chaos

Toccoa, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ComeSeeMe wrote:
<quoted text>
Come and see me., I'll let my ar-15 answer your question.
Just the kind of person who shouldn't be allowed a weapon. Fool.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

ComeSeeMe wrote:
<quoted text>Come and see me., I'll let my ar-15 answer your question.
Great Post.

Hope that is an AR-15 A2 with the forward assist. Mine is from the early days before they added that feature - shows my age.

Without knowing it, you have just harmed your cause,(and mine as a firearm owner), immeasurably by demonstrating that too many immature children posses firearms.

I know, your truck has a bumper sticker that says "My boy can shoot your honor student" - but really, ignorance and violence are not good things.

And you should be more careful with veiled threats. What with the Military, Police, FBI, Secret Service, DEA, and NRA training they made me do over 30 years, along with the field experience, it might just not be all that easy.
Just saying.
Although 20 extra pounds and a few knee surgeries have slowed me down a bit.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
...an AR-15 A2 with the forward assist.
I thought that was called the little blue pill.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

A bit more from the history folder...

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

Slave Control

"Slavery was not only an economic and industrial system," one scholar noted, "but more than that, it was a gigantic police system."[123] Over time the South had developed an elaborate system of slave control. The basic instrument of control was the slave patrol, armed groups of white men who made regular rounds.[124] The patrols made sure that blacks were not wandering where they did not belong, gathering in groups, or engaging in other suspicious activity.[125] Equally important, however, was the demonstration of constant vigilance and armed force. The basic strategy was to ensure and impress upon the slaves that whites were armed, watchful, and ready to respond to insurrectionist activity at all times.[126] The state required white men and female plantation owners to participate in the patrols and to provide their own arms and equipment, although the rich were permitted to send white servants in their place.[127]

Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia all had regulated slave patrols.[128] By the mid-eighteenth century, the patrols had become the responsibility of the militia.[129] Georgia statutes [Page 336] enacted in 1755 and 1757, for example, carefully divided militia districts into discrete patrol areas and specified when patrols would muster. The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search "all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition" and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.[130]

In the South, therefore, the patrols and the militia were largely synonymous. The Stono Rebellion had been quickly suppressed because the white men worshiping at the Wiltown Presbyterian church on that Sunday morning had, as required by law, gone to church armed.[131] Some of the accounts of Stono refer to the body of white men who attacked the black insurrectionists as the "militia"[132] while others refer to them as "planters."[133] This is a distinction without a difference; the two groups were one and the same. Virtually all able-bodied white men were part of the militia, which primarily meant that they had slave control duties under the direction and discipline of the local militia officers.[134]

The militia was the first and last protection from the omnipresent threat of slave insurrection or vengeance.[135] The War for Independence had placed the South in a precarious position: sending the militia to the war against the British would leave Southern communities vulnerable to slave insurrection. The Southern states, therefore, often refused to commit their militia to the Revolution, reserving them instead for slave control.[136] Nor could the South help by sending much in the [Page 337] way of arms, for rifles were in short supply [137] and necessary to defend against possible slave insurrection.[138]

After the war, the militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population. Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats. The South's fear that the North might destabilize the slave system weakening white control over the slave population gave anti-Federalists a powerful weapon.[139]
UC VOTER

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

Bottom line: the gummit can't cherry pick which parts of the Constitution they want to abolish and which parts they want to implement. It doesn't work that way.

I own guns. I will NEVER turn them in. I will NEVER register any new ones.

33% of the population in this country are gun owners; you think they should all be labeled criminals for possessing weapons? I don't.

Obama and this stinking commie government can kiss my ass.
Minuteman

Watkinsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Oh my wrote:
A bit more from the history folder...
THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
Slave Control
"Slavery was not only an economic and industrial system," one scholar noted, "but more than that, it was a gigantic police system."[123] Over time the South had developed an elaborate system of slave control. The basic instrument of control was the slave patrol, armed groups of white men who made regular rounds.[124] The patrols made sure that blacks were not wandering where they did not belong, gathering in groups, or engaging in other suspicious activity.[125] Equally important, however, was the demonstration of constant vigilance and armed force. The basic strategy was to ensure and impress upon the slaves that whites were armed, watchful, and ready to respond to insurrectionist activity at all times.[126] The state required white men and female plantation owners to participate in the patrols and to provide their own arms and equipment, although the rich were permitted to send white servants in their place.[127]
Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia all had regulated slave patrols.[128] By the mid-eighteenth century, the patrols had become the responsibility of the militia.[129] Georgia statutes [Page 336] enacted in 1755 and 1757, for example, carefully divided militia districts into discrete patrol areas and specified when patrols would muster. The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search "all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition" and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.[130]
In the South, therefore, the patrols and the militia were largely synonymous. The Stono Rebellion had been quickly suppressed because the white men worshiping at the Wiltown Presbyterian church on that Sunday morning had, as required by law, gone to church armed.[131] Some of the accounts of Stono refer to the body of white men who attacked the black insurrectionists as the "militia"[132] while others refer to them as "planters."[133] This is a distinction without a difference; the two groups were one and the same. Virtually all able-bodied white men were part of the militia, which primarily meant that they had slave control duties under the direction and discipline of the local militia officers.[134]
The militia was the first and last protection from the omnipresent threat of slave insurrection or vengeance.[135] The War for Independence had placed the South in a precarious position: sending the militia to the war against the British would leave Southern communities vulnerable to slave insurrection. The Southern states, therefore, often refused to commit their militia to the Revolution, reserving them instead for slave control.[136] Nor could the South help by sending much in the [Page 337] way of arms, for rifles were in short supply [137] and necessary to defend against possible slave insurrection.[138]
After the war, the militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population. Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats. The South's fear that the North might destabilize the slave system weakening white control over the slave population gave anti-Federalists a powerful weapon.[139]
I wish I would have seen the article was by the Univ of California at Davis, so I wouldn't have wasted my time reading it in the first place.
UC VOTER

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Minuteman wrote:
<quoted text>I wish I would have seen the article was by the Univ of California at Davis, so I wouldn't have wasted my time reading it in the first place.
LMAO. With most posts all you have to do is read who is writing or copying to get the picture.

Jeff Foxworthy:

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrate doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlaswed.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
A Democrat demands that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Minuteman wrote:
<quoted text>I wish I would have seen the article was by the Univ of California at Davis, so I wouldn't have wasted my time reading it in the first place.
Well, what was posted was an excerpt, the linked article clearly states its origin. Now, instead of taking a cheap shot perhaps you would like to refute the sourced material in the footnotes.
Minuteman

Watkinsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what was posted was an excerpt, the linked article clearly states its origin. Now, instead of taking a cheap shot perhaps you would like to refute the sourced material in the footnotes.
No thanks, ANYTHING that has a commie, liberal left stamped on it means absolutely NOTHING.
Informed Opinion

Alva, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 31, 2013
 
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>I thought that was called the little blue pill.
Great post.

But dammit the insurance plan doesn't pay for that or the Propecia.

I can't afford both, and at my age and kids all over the place already, I'd rather have hair.
Informed Opinion

Alva, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Oh my wrote:
A bit more from the history folder...

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

Slave Control

"Slavery was not only an economic and industrial system," one scholar noted, "but more than that, it was a gigantic police system."[123] Over time the South had developed an elaborate system of slave control. The basic instrument of control was the slave patrol, armed groups of white men who made regular rounds.[124] The patrols made sure that blacks were not wandering where they did not belong, gathering in groups, or engaging in other suspicious activity.[125] Equally important, however, was the demonstration of constant vigilance and armed force. The basic strategy was to ensure and impress upon the slaves that whites were armed, watchful, and ready to respond to insurrectionist activity at all times.[126] The state required white men and female plantation owners to participate in the patrols and to provide their own arms and equipment, although the rich were permitted to send white servants in their place.[127]

Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia all had regulated slave patrols.[128] By the mid-eighteenth century, the patrols had become the responsibility of the militia.[129] Georgia statutes [Page 336] enacted in 1755 and 1757, for example, carefully divided militia districts into discrete patrol areas and specified when patrols would muster. The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search "all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition" and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.[130]

In the South, therefore, the patrols and the militia were largely synonymous. The Stono Rebellion had been quickly suppressed because the white men worshiping at the Wiltown Presbyterian church on that Sunday morning had, as required by law, gone to church armed.[131] Some of the accounts of Stono refer to the body of white men who attacked the black insurrectionists as the "militia"[132] while others refer to them as "planters."[133] This is a distinction without a difference; the two groups were one and the same. Virtually all able-bodied white men were part of the militia, which primarily meant that they had slave control duties under the direction and discipline of the local militia officers.[134]

The militia was the first and last protection from the omnipresent threat of slave insurrection or vengeance.[135] The War for Independence had placed the South in a precarious position: sending the militia to the war against the British would leave Southern communities vulnerable to slave insurrection. The Southern states, therefore, often refused to commit their militia to the Revolution, reserving them instead for slave control.[136] Nor could the South help by sending much in the [Page 337] way of arms, for rifles were in short supply [137] and necessary to defend against possible slave insurrection.[138]

After the war, the militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population. Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats. The South's fear that the North might destabilize the slave system ¾ weakening white control over the slave population ¾ gave anti-Federalists a powerful weapon.[139]
Great post.

I'm keeping my firearms, but gotta admit it has nothing to do with any Constitutional rights - just enjoy the peace of mind knowing I'm not at a disadvantage should there be a "problem".

But, I can't disagree with those who say I have no "right" to possess them. Just gotta make it politically difficult to pass laws to make me give them up.

If I lose the political battle - I think that's called democracy.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post.
I'm keeping my firearms, but gotta admit it has nothing to do with any Constitutional rights - just enjoy the peace of mind knowing I'm not at a disadvantage should there be a "problem".
But, I can't disagree with those who say I have no "right" to possess them. Just gotta make it politically difficult to pass laws to make me give them up.
If I lose the political battle - I think that's called democracy.
Boring.
Scissors

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 1, 2013
 

Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/shear_b...
DoctorDoctor

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1



Doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038889_doctors_gun...
froggy

Toccoa, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

UC VOTER wrote:
Bottom line: the gummit can't cherry pick which parts of the Constitution they want to abolish and which parts they want to implement. It doesn't work that way.
I own guns. I will NEVER turn them in. I will NEVER register any new ones.
33% of the population in this country are gun owners; you think they should all be labeled criminals for possessing weapons? I don't.
Obama and this stinking commie government can kiss my ass.
You ain't that important. If things are so bad here why don't you leave & go, say somewhere like Somolia where you can has all the weapons you want and no gov't?
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

UC VOTER wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO. With most posts all you have to do is read who is writing or copying to get the picture.

Jeff Foxworthy:

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrate doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlaswed.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
A Democrat demands that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
Progressives study the writings of Christ, Mohammad, Aristotle, Kant, Tocqueville, Franklin, and Lincoln.

Republican's watch Jeff Foxworthy.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DoctorDoctor wrote:
Doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038889_doctors_gun...
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.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

froggy wrote:
<quoted text>You ain't that important. If things are so bad here why don't you leave & go, say somewhere like Somolia where you can has all the weapons you want and no gov't?
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."

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 12
Next Last

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.

Young Harris Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
GA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 21 min Sick Man Freud 53,050
Debate: Ferguson - Hiawassee, GA 27 min beeper 7
Lot btwn McDonalds & Carwash 75 N. 1 hr cupcake 1
Wanting to relocate to Hiawassee 1 hr Network 11
brmemc 1 hr socalledfriend 203
It shouldn't be this **** hard to find a job (Mar '13) 1 hr skeet 38
florida 4 hr Disgusted 28
•••

Young Harris News Video

•••
Young Harris Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Young Harris Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Young Harris People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Young Harris News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Young Harris
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••