Serowbot wrote on 10/05/15 at 22:33:21:


Jesus  Sew, your skin is tissue thin......   I thought this was a mild discussion.

I don't own a gun, never have, and I don't understand the attraction or need to get rapid fire ones, that surely can not be sporting.
They must designed to do great damage, quickly, as opposed to accuracy.
I have absolutely no qualms about highly restricting and regulating their presence in our society....
However, all that said and done, it do not believe it will fix the deeper problem of why people kill, nor will it take the guns away from the criminals, as they don't care about laws, and it ( stricter gun laws ) might even increase killings in adults and robberies as a dead witness is one who can't snitch on you....

[color=#0000ff][/color]WebsterMark wrote on 10/05/15 at 09:24:40:


OK, first things first, I apologize for stealing and hijacking the thread towards a new subject - but it's four pages now that everybody is discussing
"my" observations", so I have hit a "raw nerve", so to speak.

HOWEVER

I do not speak out of spite but out of love for the Nation I considered my Home as a Junior High School student
(you have no idea how distraught I was when I was told we'd be returning to Europe)
I speak my words because I firmly beliveve things can be made to improve not by forcing change down people's throats but by looking around and seeing how "different approaches" have worked very well in other comparable environments (I believe I could never compare the US to India, but I do believe I could compare the US to Canada or the UK or South Africa or Australia, for example)

My post about the 2nd Amendment is wrong ?
I can and will analyse it word by word; First of all, the wording:

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

"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."

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:

"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.
"

Can you see the first fundamental difference? I can.
There is a fundamental difference between "state" and "State".
"state" being "the state you're in", as in Freeman, serf, press-ganged sailor etc... not to mention slave...
"State" being that organized form of society where individual powers are given by the individual to a centralized form of administration for the gommon good of the "res publica", the public community which takes it onto itself to cater for the common requirements in a way as to ensure the gommon good.
It is irrelevant that the form of administration is a Monarchy, an Oligarchy, a Republic or a permanent Assembly (see Maoist China, the former USSR or former Lybia) - they are all forms of "State" with a capital "S".

So, the forst difference is that you must determine if the 2nd Amendment is to protect you as an individual or as a community.

Secondly: The right "of the People"  or "of the people"?
Are you a mass of individuals or an organic, functional ensemble of citizens?
Can you feel the difference?

Third: "A well Regulated Militia"...
"Regulated" does not mean "common logistics" as one suggested, much less that it has leadership.
"Regulated" from Latin "Regula" means that it is determined by a satute, a set of Regulations or (Code of Discipline) and quite possibly a set of written Rules of Engagements and a set of Mission tasks.
All this through a Command Structure and well determined hierarchy.
Mind you, I am saying this as a professional military, I know what I am talking about.

Fourth: "The right of the P/people to keep and bear arms"
This determines the right of the individual/collectivity... it doesn NOT claim the right to keep them individually within their own home, or the collective obligation to keep them into custody at the "Village Armory"
It simply declares the P/people are entitled to keep and bear (i.e., have the availability of, be trained to use, and functionally deploy individual weapons)

Fifth: "shall not be infringed"
Believe it or not, THIS is the ONLY part of the 2nd Amendment which will not lend itself to discussion or interpretation.
Anything else is fodder for the Justices if their time; whatever the Supreme Court may have ruled in 1939, who is to say this will not be overruled next week, or next month, or next year ?
Who is to say "a strictly literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment demands that a Citizen MUST be enlisted in the State Militia / National Guard in order to benefit from said right" will not happen in... 2020?

I once read a thread in this Forum where the initiator sparked a discussion with the statement "Nowhere does it say in my State's nor in Federal law that you MUST hold a license in order to drive a car" and he was ... taken not very seriously.
Who knows, maybe he could appeal his driving ticket all the way to the Supreme Court!

So, all in all... NO, I do not speak out of spite, and YES I do wish things could improve.
I am convinced that if CCPs were made the only way to legally carry a gun, half the people currently carrying would either stop carrying or be denied CCPs.
I am saying this out of personal experience, bureaucrats are bureaucrats everywhere...

P.S. I lived in Falls Church, VA, 22044

As the guy says at the end of this video (forgive the poor quality)

"Maybe it's not the gun, it's the guy holding the gun"

http://www.facebook.com/retainyourfreedom/videos/911303092238059/

(I'll add one more)

http://www.facebook.com/TheDailyShare/videos/485527148273328/
(or two...)
http://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/964786396947748/

The statements:
“One NEEDS to have a Drivers License, to Drive a Car/Truck”
And
 “One does NOT need a Drivers License, to Drive a Car/Truck”
Are, BOTH, correct !
What is missing is, ‘Information’. Complete information.

Now we all do it, (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not), depending on one’s POV. When we discuss a topic. (not just political).  Just like someone saying: “The Fish are hitting in 10 feet of water in xyz lake”. And the next persons says: “The fish are NOT hitting in 10 feet of water in xyz lake”.  Their is information missing.  
Some, ‘politicians’, and ‘Media’, Intentionally, mislead people, by NOT, giving complete information.

Just like, what some words meant, 240 years ago, vs what they mean now.
(Or the spelling, grammar, Punctuation that was used)
It is the, ‘more’ information, that is necessary.
(In the case of the 2nd Amendment, it is the, ‘meaning’, 240 years ago).

Oh, if you haven’t already figured it out.
Driving: IF, you are on Public, Roads/Right of Ways, you Need a D.L.
If you are on, Private land, you do NOT need a D.L.
Just a, 'LITTLE', piece of information, missing.  

What is a militia? Who pays them?
Don't forget, the authors of the Constitution had just fought for freedom from a tyrannical government. Do you REALLY believe that they wanted the People to be subservient and easy targets?

mpescatori wrote on 10/08/15 at 11:00:50:


I don't think it's "absolutely irrelevant", it states that in order to defend ourselves, the populace must be trained in the operation of the given weapons of the day.  It does not state, unless you are in a militia, you may not have a weapon.

Most of our laws are determined by example.
Quote:

Once the law has been interpreted this way, it's very difficult to reverse it.

You may nit pick every word of the law, but until you have a convincing argument, I won't start any gofundme accounts for you.

Let’s see, the 14th Amendment.

“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

OK, One group says this is, ABSOLUTE. NO Change. It is,  FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS !     @@!@@!!!@

So someone, can wade across  the ‘Reo Grand’,  within a day or two, of having a baby, and that, ‘baby’, is “Instantly’, Granted, Citizenship?
Where the people who wrote that,  (Probably, don’t know, I wasn’t their), were  thinking someone in a ship, which took, 1 or to MONTHS, to get here, and had a baby.
YET, that, 'group', state:   "it's always been this way!"

AND, the SAME, ‘group’, says the 2nd Adm,  need to be, ‘Re-Written’, because it does not apply today.  ????????????

Gee, Golly, ya, think,  something else is going on here  ?????????