Ok, Feel free to read what the founders actually meant by a "well regulated militia" by reading sections 4-10: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm It's also clear by reading over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, that the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government, not threaten it. http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt In fact, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace and saw a militia as a form of compulsory military service that would protect the country from attacks during those times that the US otherwise had no need of a standing army. Is this the function of those that pretend they are "a well regulated militia" today? Are uncle Jebediah's shotguns suited to protecting anyone from drone strikes? I think not.
press your weak case to SCOTUS, they say differently - - - Updated - - - 9 people say you have no argument, it has been settled and admit it, it frosts your rear and keeps you up at night.
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States. I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
I was asked to present the gun-control position based on the words of the founding fathers and I did so. The fact that you don't like hearing it (yet keep coming back) is of no consequence to me. The fact that 9 people agree on something (whether it's a 911 conspiracy theory, who shot JFK, or the most convenient interpretation of the founding fathers' words) is similarly of no consequence to me. Don't flatter yourself into believing your existence means anything to me.
Yeah, that "BYO gun and ammo" bit sounds a lot like an individual mandate, doesn't it? When are you gonna get around to reading sections 4-10?
My "interpretation" that it details the structure and requirements are incorrect?! What do you believe are outlined in sections 4-10, since you claim to have read them?
Not uncommon from people who cherry-pick what laws and rights they agree with and which they choose to ignore.
I wasn't the one who goes against SCOTUS, you stated you don't have a use for them. That, in turn, makes you lawless The fact that 9 people agree on something (whether it's a 911 conspiracy theory, who shot JFK, or the most convenient interpretation of the founding fathers' words) is similarly of no consequence to me so much for your claim that you are a law-abiding citizen.
So disagreeing with SCOTUS on one issue means I "have no use for them" and must be "lawless", right? It's impossible to disagree with a SCOTUS decision and still be a "law abiding citizen", right? Remind me how you feel about Obamacare. Hypocrisy, once again proven to be a conservative trait.
The policy issue with the NRA is just that it has decided that strategically, it's best move is to try to block any kind of regulation in any way related to firearms. It used to be that when a new gun safety proposal came along, people would wait to see what the NRA said about it, and while the NRA would always be very pro-gun of course, often times it would get on board with easy-to-comply with safety regulations. For example, the NRA used to support criminal background checks and gun safety training requirements. Today, it just automatically opposes everything. Strategically I get why the NRA does that, but It is really hard to reach a sensible set of policies when one side just habitually opposes every possible solution. Then there is this cultural sort of issue underlying the problem with the NRA's extreme approach to the policy. My 70 year old mom has a rifle that she uses periodically to scare the bear out of the garbage and I could totally get behind the message that her right to do that is fundamental. I could even get behind the idea that a calm, rational, person has a right to defend themselves with a gun in certain carefully thought out situations. But, I can't get behind the idea that Ted Nugent needs to be armed to the teeth to prepare for whatever apocalyptic war he seems to think is coming any second now. The NRA is trying to sell the awesomeness of kick ass gun paranoia when it should be trying to sell the value of a useful tool in reasonable hands.
can we say Mayors Against Guns, Bloomberg, or Gates? If we take away the NRA, the movement to protect our 2nd A becomes an unleveled playing field. I don't see you protesting Bloomberg and his compadres, but you'll sure criticize the Right to keep and bear arms and the method for which the we defend our Rights......typical of the anti-gun crowd. They want to hamper our Rights, anyway they can. Anything to silence the 1st A. Remove the NRA and you can have free reign with destroying our Rights. What really sucks for you guys is the fact that regardless of how many millions Bloomberg and his ilk keep spending, you guys can't have our guns. Their continual loses must really be chafing more than just a few butts. Buggar off, mate
so, it'[s ok to muster all kinds of money to strip our Rights, but, in your opinion, we should have no way to defend against unconstitutional activities.....no ad hom here, you are dodging the truth... I take it you support MAG?
1) I made no such assertions, just pointed out that you seem to use a lot of logical fallacies in the way you asserted your perspective. 2) Remind me which party voted to get big money out of politics.
To answer your question while actually bringing you back on topic: I support the rights of any group to exercise their first amendment rights, but am critical of groups that simply promote their own financial gain in the guise of public interest. Interesting that you continue to repeat your questions while dodging those presented to you...
I'm sorry, were the words I used to answer that question too big for you? Would a picture drawn in crayon be more appropriate for you?
Mother's Against Guns means well, but most of their fears are due to a lack of education. The NRA needs to not seem obstructionist and offer "sensible gun laws" regarding keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals without further burdening lawful gun owners.
are you a card carrying member of Mayors Against Guns? Do you support their activity? Do you support their agenda?
I'm not "a card carrying member" of any such organisation. My thoughts as to what makes sense are my own. One of us (hint: me) doesn't need to be told what to think.
