Oh sure, guns. Everyone knows the car antenna is the shit.

My buddy has a 12 gauge short barrel pump under the counter. He has drawn it a half dozen times. Never fired it.

He said their eyes get wide open when he draws it and pumps it.

Why does the author think somebody wants his gun?

Is there some newly discovered language in the USA PATRIOT Act which repeals the Second Amendment or something?

I keep a .45 auto next to my bed. Around here everyone owns at least one gun. Crooks arn't stupid enough to intrude while people are home.

I have been held at gunpoint twice.

The first time, I did not have a gun. I keep my cool and escaped with nothing but a weak ass punch to my jaw.

The second time, I was riding in the back of my brothers pickup while hunting. I had my 12 gauge with me. A drunk and pissed off neighbor stopped us on a dirt road and complained about us shooting so close to his house. He fired at the front of the truck. I was armed and probably would have been justified in blowing him away with 00 Buck from about 15 feet away. I didn't though because I knew the assailant was just trying to scare us. I was waiting for the second time he started to raise his gun. He took off though and the incident was forgotten.

Having been in both situations, I like being armed more than not being armed.

I'm always puzzled by people who can present rational arguments on why pot should be legalized but guns should be outlawed. Though if pot were legalized there might be less need for guns...

RCADEs point was, moderation on some site such as Daily KOS are the root cause of partisan extreemist. Oppoistion voices never heard of, becomes a breeding ground for blind cheer leading idiots.
Thank You RCADE for your modertaion, even though I do not agree with your Partisan politics

I'm not sure who the writer is speaking at. I don't see a movement to ban handguns and most active gun control efforts are aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and providing gun safety education to those who decide to own gun.

Is there some newly discovered language in the USA PATRIOT Act which repeals the Second Amendment or something?

#3 | Posted by snoofy at

no but one step closer to it with the annoitment of the 'wise latina' to the SC

"I'm always puzzled by people who can present rational arguments on why pot should be legalized but guns should be outlawed.
#6 | Posted by valis"

Link?

Pssssssst......Hey Author, nobody's coming for your gun retard.

"no but one step closer to it with the annoitment of the 'wise latina' to the SC"

#9 | Posted by buttlover2

And what, exactly, has the 'wise latina' said that would make you think that?

Or are you just spouting bullshit like you usually do?

Μολὼν λάβε

Considering how many guns the American public has and how corrupt the US Govt is - its amazing that really zero percentage of the gun owing public have gone on a bloody rampage - this of course could change at any time!

"Bring it on"

Or are you just spouting bullshit like you usually do?

#12 | Posted by Dave at 2009

well actually Im spouting a little more than normal thank you for asking.;

with this oppresive government there is more than enough everyday to spout about.........

it iS hard to tell what she thinks since she TALKed aGAINST every issue that she had ruled about

she DENIED EvERYTHING that was in her written history.......every aspect of it...and WHY??
easy....just get on that court and THEN turn into a souter.....and foR A LIFETIME, she wont EVER have to worry about the SC overturning her like they did

FOUR OUT OF SIX TIMEs......

Considering how many guns the American public has and how corrupt the US Govt is - its amazing that really zero percentage of the gun owing public have gone on a bloody rampage - this of course could change at any time!

#14 | Posted by AntiCadillac at

what do ALL of the countries under dictatorships and killers have in common

only the government has weapons...or even remotely similar to our 2nd amendment...

the founders knew what they were doing here just like all the other matters...(10th AmendmENt which is being raped)...

"I've got a crush on a pretty pistol
should I tell her that I feel this way?
Father told us to be faithful
I've got a crush on a pretty pistol
should I tell her that I feel this way
I've got love songs in my head
that are killing us away"

[The Father:]
"do you love your
guns?" (yeah)
"god?"
(yeah)
"your government?"

"do you love your
guns?"
(yeah)
"god?"
(yeah)
"your government?"
(fuck yeah)

[The bullet:]
"She tells me I'm a pretty bullet
I'm gonna be a star someday
Mother says that we should look away
She tells me I'm a pretty bullet
an Imitation Christ
I've got love songs in my head
that are killing us away"

[The Father:]
"do you love your
guns?"
(yeah)
"god?"
(yeah)
"your government?"
(fuck yeah)

Is there some newly discovered language in the USA PATRIOT Act which repeals the Second Amendment or something?

#3 | Posted by snoofy

There isn't a year that goes by that there arn't 4 or 5 bills introduced to take our guns away. The latest one is going through the IRS to tax them away from us. It is Senate Bill SB-2099.

no but one step closer to it with the annoitment of the 'wise latina' to the SC

#9 | Posted by afkabl2

Now now if you keep that kind of talk up Quanell X will revoke your ghetto pass he's done it to others in Houston he'll do it to you.

What does donut mean in blog slang world?

What does donut mean in blog slang world?

I explain it here:

Everyone knows the car antenna is the shit.

#1 | Posted by LetUsPrey

I'm not sure. Have you seen that Scotish fucker whacking people with a Dipstick on TV? Pretty intimidating.

Um,

"Get on your knees and smile like a donut"

But at Kos:

"Kos users call some comments donuts to signify they are worth zero in the site's recommendation system"

Three donuts (no sugar)to Kos for failure to engage in discussion... 000

" Have you seen that Scotish(sic) fucker whacking people with a Dipstick on TV? "

Where do you think the ad men got the idea?

We already got mileage out of that commercial months ago.

I don't

DOH! My bad...definition of Kos donut is from Rogers Cadenhead's "workbench" site.

-apologies

We already got mileage out of that commercial months ago.

#25 | Posted by Zatoichi

Well I didn't, selfish.

"Well I didn't, selfish."

Posted by wisgod at 2009-07-20 09:26 PM

What?

You want a fucking invitation?

Pay attention!

You want a fucking invitation?

Pay attention!

#29 | Posted by Zatoichi

Pay, pay, pay. Fucking Democrats.

I haven't fucked a Democrat in years.

Who is coming for the writer's guns? I vaguely remember in the not so distant past the federal government going door to door for the guns of lawful citizens during Katrina. It's been done before, it can and will be done again. I promise you.

"It is Senate Bill SB-2099.
#19 | Posted by Sniper "

With the "SB-2099" rumors circulating again in the wake of the 2008 election, the National Rifle Assocation released the following informational alert in May 2009:

Clearing Up the Rumors: The Truth About The "Gun Tax Bill"

Friday, May 29, 2009

In the last few weeks, NRA-ILA has received hundreds of e-mails warning us about "SB-2099," a bill that would supposedly require you to report all your guns on your income tax return every April 15.

Like many rumors, there's just a grain of truth to this one. Someone's recycling an old alert, which wasn't even very accurate when it was new.

There actually was a U.S. Senate bill with that number that would have taxed handgunsnine years ago. It was introduced by anti-gun Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and it would have included handguns under the National Firearms Act's tax and registration scheme. This has nothing to do with anyone's Form 1040, of course.

Fortunately, S. 2099 disappeared without any action by the Senate, back when Bill Clinton was still in the White House. We reported about it back then, just as we report about new anti-gun bills every week. Now, it's time for gun owners to drop this old distraction and focus on the real threats at hand.

You really should fact check things, sniper.

whoops, missed your post johnny.

Pssssssst......Hey Author, nobody's coming for your gun retard.

#11 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

No doubt, but they are going to try and tax ammunition 500%.
Then a gun will be a brick.

If they don't getcha one way, they'll getcha you the other way.

pack daily exercise your right of lose it

the Judge 45410 rocks

My friend in Australia said ten years ago anyone could have guns, and they acted like crocodile Dundee, and crime was very low.
After 2001 they passed laws and NO ONE in australia can have a gun now unless you have papers and it is locked up.
Crime is the same. Criminals still have guns, citizens dont.

They want your guns because they want the criminals only to have them, otherwise there can be no true terrorism.

If that happened in NY, Bruce, you know the punk would call 911 and say that Dundee attacked him without cause, and show his jacket as proof.

Dundee would be arrested, and his side of the story only listened to by his friends and lawyer (who really doesn't believe him, either.)

The punk would hire, or threaten a bunch of witnesses, and the cops would describe how big the knife appeared, and how they were afraid for their lives, too, even though Dundee didn't pull it on them to protect himself.

The jury would find for the punk, and Dundee would spend 5-10 for a class B Unlawful Use of a Weapon, plus 30,000, in fines. He'll get out on probation after 4 months because the number of rapists increases. Ironically, the punk who swore falsely is found guilty of raping one of the witnesses against you ... on too many times ....

That's the socialistic asylum that the neo-commie cowards have created in this nation ... the verminous whores and punks of the Democratic party ...

#40 | Posted by tadowe at 2009-07-21 12:10 AM | Reply | Flag: Never met a lie he didn't like-clueless bastard.

On the other hand-why does the author think anyone even WANTS his guns?
He obviously has such a fetish for them-I'd be reluctant to touch them-for sanitary reasons....

Frank drools over the idea, "On the other hand-why does the author think anyone even WANTS his guns? He obviously has such a fetish for them-I'd be reluctant to touch them-for sanitary reasons....

I love it when the unconscious dupes for socialist disarmament of the public tries to project and insult. The complete dufii cannot fathom how anyone would know about their fetishes, and which the KNOW soil their character ...

... consequently they can't resist using the same shame they feel to insult an 'enemy' ...

Freudian-ruled cretins like Frank, here ...

#22 | Posted by rcade

Goddamn boy. Even if you partially get enjoyment from queers liking you. You ARE a good liberal. And never have thrown an insult.

Good man Our rcade.

Guess "our" is really rcade's but anyhow. I wish other DR libs were as listened as our host.

Sorry-tad(the)polesmoker-I have no shame.
I'm not the one crying in my cornflakes over a non-existent "threat" to take away my guns.

The stoooopid is reeeeally, reeeeally strong in that idiot.

Yeah, if only that guy had whipped out a pistol when the two teens were pointing guns at him. That would have made things turn out way better.

Thanks CMBell. It does seem like piss-poor moderation, but the deleted story itself doesn't really have much to offer. (And if this Faceless character is in fact a troll, then he got what he deserved. But I have no way of knowing)

I have never read Daily Kos, so I can't formulate an opinion on whether dumping this post was inappropriate "censorship."

I keep a Colt .45 next to my bed, too. It's only half-filled in the morning 'cause if I drink the whole thing I get a headache.

CommonSense is one of those retards that supports strict gun controls, high taxes on ammo, bans of every gun that doesn't have a 30 inch barrel and isn't muzzle loaded, and then tells everyone that no one is after their gun.

Yeah, if only that guy had whipped out a pistol when the two teens were pointing guns at him. That would have made things turn out way better.

#46 | Posted by RastaCyborg at 2009-07-21 01:20 AM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't think people should defend themselves

You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!!!

An Attorney General who wants to ban certain guns.
A White House Chief of Staff who wants to use the no-fly list to ban people from owning guns
A President who is anti-gun.

Yep. No need to worry.

Zeke, are you dead yet?

Sincerely Mr. Heston

Got a gun, fact I got two
That's O.K. man, cuz I love god
Glorified version of a pellet gun
Feels so manly, when armed
Glorified version of a pellet gun (4x)

Double think, dumb is strength
Never shot at a living thing
Glorified version of a pellet gun
Feels so manly, when armed

Glorified version of a pellet gun (3x)
Glorified version of a...

Always keep it loaded (3x)

Crisis

Kindred to be an American...
Life comes...I can feel your heart...
Ooh...life comes...I can feel your heart through your neck...
Life comes...I can feel your heart through your neck...
Like some...I can steal your heart form your neck...

I doubt this guys story. I doubt he was ever a supporter of gun control. He talks about getting the shit scared out of him by people with guns---and that makes him think that people having guns is a good thing? How did he think having a gun would have made a difference in that scenario?

I think he lied about the mace--you can't ignore boogers the size of texas coming out of your nose and eyes crying like a republican at an Obama victory party and not being able to see. He didn't know he'd been maced? Bullshit. Shock won't prevent you from choking your ass off. He's a liar.

The story of the break in is also a lie. He didn't call the cops after he got his gun? He just waited for them to come up the stairs? What if they had guns too? How did they get in and out?

This whole story is fiction.

(

(with a nod to Pastor Martin Niemller )

When the government came for my guns,
I remained silent;
I did not own a gun.

Then they locked up the people with knives
I remained silent;
I had thrown away my knives.

Then they came for my right to speak
I did not protest;
I remained silent.

Then they came for the neighbors,
I did not speak out;
I did not know them well.

When the mob came for me,
there was no one left to defend me.

==============
The second amendment is what gives teeth to the other amendments. The option of the citizenry to replace its government, by force if necessary, was designed to keep government in check.

It comes down to choice. Pro-Choice abortion advocates say a woman has a right to her own body. And Pro-Choice gun advocates say that same woman has the right to protect her own body.

So it only follows that you don't HAVE to have a weapon...but that it is your right to choose to have a weapon. Whether that weapon is for self defense against a criminal or a government.

- I think he lied about the mace-

#55 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

From the story:

"I had been sprayed with pepper spray"

- How did he think having a gun would have made a difference in that scenario?

Probably would not have. But it certainly made him think that he would be more prepared to defend himself the next time.

- He didn't call the cops after he got his gun?

So because the author didn't explicitly state in the story that he did or did not call the police to report the incident, he's a liar.

- He just waited for them to come up the stairs?

And what would you do? Go blasting through the door, six shooters blazing, while your son is wailing away scared shitless?

- How did they get in and out?

Maybe through the door? A window? Interdimensional shift?

DAPROF

The second amendment had nothint to do with an individual right to bear arms. The second amendment was tp protect the States from an evil and powerful central government. The founders knew individuals would not be able to protect themselves if that happened---that's why they wrote the second amendment---to give the States the power to protect themselves from the central government if necessary.

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.

This means exactly what it says---a Well regulated militia is not any Tom Dick and Harry that can afford a gun. It is a military organization---like the State Militia--which is what the second amendment refers to.

"Being necessary to a free State" is not talking about an individual---it is about protecting the State---the right of the PEOPLE not an individual--to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted. On;ly in a well regulated militia like the National Guard are weapons not restricted---and that's what the founders were talking about.

The activist judges on the USSC have changed the meaning--not the wording of the second amendment.

A well regulated militia---USSC---ignore that part.

being necessary to a free State--USSC--ehhh we don't need that part either.

the right of the people---USSC--Let's change that to INDIVIDUALS---much shorter, and I'm sure that's what the founders REALLY meant.

To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed---USSC---well wait a minute---let's change this part to--shall be infringed as government sees fit.

So now the NEW second amendment MEANS:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

BUT---the words haven't changed a bit. The WORDS are still:

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.

Neat trick, huh.

From the story:

"I had been sprayed with pepper spray"

So? I think he lied about the PEPPER SPRAY--better? Shock will not let you ignore snot running out your nose and the fact that you can't see or breath.

- How did he think having a gun would have made a difference in that scenario?

Probably would not have. But it certainly made him think that he would be more prepared to defend himself the next time.

How could he think that? What possible outcome could he have surmised that a gun would help him? It would seem that for an avowed gun control advocate to change his mind---something would have logically told him--if I had had a gun at THAT point--things would have been better. There is no logic to the statement--no reason a=for a gun control advocate to change his mine--what happened would only reinforce the thought that guns are bad. He lied--the story is fiction.

- He didn't call the cops after he got his gun?

So because the author didn't explicitly state in the story that he did or did not call the police to report the incident, he's a liar.

It is an accumulation of bullshit. He's scared and doesn't call the cops? He hears trhem talking and doesn't hear them breaking in? He's a liar.

- He just waited for them to come up the stairs?

And what would you do? Go blasting through the door, six shooters blazing, while your son is wailing away scared shitless?

I would call the cops and retreat into another room. Maybe pick up a copy of My Pet Goat to check out--I hear it's pretty good.

- How did they get in and out?

Maybe through the door? A window? Interdimensional shift?

Just another detail this guy lacks. He's a liar--but that's my opinion. You can worship him as Jesus returned for all I care.

#58 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-07-21 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

BUFFIE...all knowing entity that thou art...'splain to me why the Bill of Rights set forth INDIVIDUAL rights except for the Second Amendment which you claim addresses a STATE right. The "right of the people" refers to persons...no? Does not the Second Amendment say, "..the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed?" Don't anti-gun laws "infringe" that right? Of course, it doesn't say "guns" explicitly, does it? That being the case, is the government going to now begin banning assault car antennae? Are the "people" going to be armed with automatic Hummer antennae or will they just be restricted to a simple antenna from a Prius?

The gun grabbers never stop. Lora Lumpe wrote, "Lets Outlaw Illegal Guns" in which she describes what was the largest shippment of arms intercepted in the US. ..Thousands of gernade launchers and parts for M2 machine guns. All illegal NOW. That was her reason for more gun laws here in the US. Like I said, they never stop with their BS.

Jestgetinalong

I guess you have no response to the actual words and their meaning. The fact stands--it was written in plain English and explained to you in the same way. It was never an individual right--it was to proect the States from the central government---and hence---the PEOPLE----not an individual.

They didn't put in the right for indivu=iduals because such right was a GIVEN--it would have made as much sense to put in that all men had the right to carry knives.. What wasn't legal---was the formation of armies large enough to oppose the central government---that's what the second amendment SAID--and what it MEANT.

The founders were bright enough to make such an individual right clear---just as they were in describing the National Guard in the Second amendment.

" be restricted to a simple antenna from a Prius?"

Still so many to choose from:

-just as they were in describing the National Guard in the Second amendment.

#63 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Do today's National Guard troops bring their own weapons when they are mustered and deployed?

Why you dumb fucks keep bringing up car antennas is beyond me? Are you just stupid or what?

Take my gun. I have three car antennas I can reach and and a telescoping truck CB antenna with night vision and laser scope.

"and hence---the PEOPLE----not an individual."

So i'm sure you would agree that the 4th does not have anything to do with an individual but instead everybody right?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated?"

They didn't put in the right for indivu=iduals

The founders were bright enough to make such an individual right clear---just as they were in describing the National Guard in the Second amendment.

#63 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

You realy should spend more time with history books and less time with comic books. There was no national guard until around 1900. The president can nationalize the national guard so what does that do to your theory?

People does not mean a state any place in the constution. It does mean individuals.

so much of the world has changed in the past 250 years i believe it may be time to revisit and redefine our nation; echoing Jefferson's concept on revolution.

Many of the things that drove the founding fathers to write the 2nd Amendment inton the BoR are no longer applicable, while many of those causes have been ignored.

The concept of gun ownership rose from the fact that the British were seizing the arms of militias and the FF wanted to protect what they viewed as a basic right. That basic right was based on the concept that the federal govt would not have a standing army and couldnt stand up to the state militias. The basic relationship between the states and the federal govt just dont apply any longer.

it is disingenous to argue that the FF were arguing for individual gun ownership. Owning a gun was like owning a horse in the day a virtual necessity when food often had to be killed by oneself or bears or wolves would wander into the town square. The 2nd Amend rose due to the conflict between those who believed states were the central power and those who argued for a strong central govt

However after 250 years it must be accepted that guns are part of or national identity and many if not most view an individual as having a right to a gun.

(I for one, being an idealist want all guns removed from society, but that is not realistic and I recognize that fact).

Our nation hungers for a revolution to redefine and modernize the concepts of the founding fathers. This amendment, like so much of the Constitution and the BoR have been bastardized and ignored and rewritten to make defining our laws completely impossible.

Why you dumb fucks keep bringing up car antennas is beyond me? Are you just stupid or what?

#66 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-21 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Don't be shy. You know exactly why we bring it up.

I read that a Japanese general, during WW 2, said he would never invade the U.S. because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

"Owning a gun was like owning a horse in the day a virtual necessity when food often had to be killed by oneself or bears or wolves would wander into the town square."

Just need a 21st century update here.

Cars instead of horses.

Though we don't hunt our food in the plains and the mountains and the forests as we once did, we do hunt and gather in the canyon-like aisles of WallyMart and the like, and there are dangerous predatory beasts lurking in the light-pole forest from whom we may need to protect ourselves, such as the Punk and the Gang-Banger.

Keeping one's self armed is not passe or now irrelevant. The predators have become more dangerous and increasingly more numerous: they might kill you just for shits and grins.

The police do not Protect and Serve. They React (after the fact) and Write (the report).

Bob tries to reason, "The second amendment had nothint to do with an individual right to bear arms. The second amendment was tp protect the States from an evil and powerful central government."

Typically, the anti-gun collective attempts to isolate one (1) 'point' they can disabuse belief in the meaning of, and thereby discredit the wealth of philosophical 'right' which also supports the 2d Amendment. It is illogical and just a bit dimwitted to do so, but the Leftists don't care if they misinform ... and just so they can obtain their dictatorial ends.

Bob practices that ends-justify-the-means form of propaganda. Bob has been in these discussions any number of times, before, and has been contradicted in his lies when he has so attempted to misdirect the truth.

Every person, presented with danger seeks to flee or fight. In deciding to fight, the individual looks for assistance; a rock, a stick, anything to end the fight in your favor ...

Bob knows that that is a natural right of any individual, to seek the best means of protection they need when presented with possible damage or death, but he won't *ever* admit that to you, because he is a base liar, for political party over all other forms of reason ....

A new type of party fascist, intent on denying you your natural right for his party ...

The designers of the constitution knew that such individuals would remove the guarantee of individual freedom and liberty and sought to justify why guns should NEVER be removed: the ultimate defense of our nation, constitution and way-of-life.

Go to hell all you neo-communist, socialist cretins and dictatorial vermin ...

"Bob tries to reason"

#74 | Posted by tadowe at 2009-07-21 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag: generous

Every person, presented with danger seeks to flee or fight. In deciding to fight, the individual looks for assistance; a rock, a stick, anything to end the fight in your favor ...

#74 | Posted by tadowe

FYI - BBob considers a car antenna to be a superior weapon than a handgun.

Just so you know the thought-process you are dealing with...

That's good Jeff. I would have thought he would go for the "dip stick".

Jeff says, "FYI - BBob considers a car antenna to be a superior weapon than a handgun. Just so you know the thought-process you are dealing with... "

Bob is the typical cement-for-brains Leftist/Democratic and literally will never acknowledge facts and reality which contradicts his party propaganda. He isn't interested in informing, as Rcade has an excuse for doing so, but only converting others to his party's collective view.

Only your silence acknowledges facts and reality when you are in discussion with me ...

As for antennii, I will be looking for a telescoping one, when I need a club, from now on out unarmed ... thanks, Bob.

I exaggerated, "Only your silence acknowledges facts and reality when you are in discussion with me ..."

That's not true, sorry, Jeff. You are the most open to acknowledging the points, in this venue (Drudge Retort) of any other poster with who I have had discussions. Only the denouement is sometimes missing in silence ...

It's all good, Tad.

The whole car antenna discussion occured during your most recent extended absence from the DR.

It was pretty hilarious and I thought you'd find humor in it. It's certainly become a long-standing joke utilized quite frequently on the DR.

My silence on certain issues is a product of 1 or more of the following:

1. Not enough time - I can't weigh in on every discussion.

2. Ignorance - sometimes I am just too ignorant to weigh-in an a contributory manner.

Now, I would argue that #1 is, by far, most often the case. However, almost everybody on this blog would argue that #2 is the case. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

As for antennii, I will be looking for a telescoping one, when I need a club, from now on out unarmed ... thanks, Bob.

BBob knows the ins-and-outs of antennii as a weapon. He could probably give you some great tips as to how best utilize a telescoping antenna as the techniques are certainly different than the cheap, standard wire antenna.

Some people like to steal hood ornaments, BBob steals antennas.

Just a few weeks ago the feds were going door to door here in Houston asking residents if they had a gun and where they got it. They said it was to try and find out more on the gun trade between us and Mexico. It was supposed to somehow find the cartel's connection for weapons in Texas.

I don't know how much of that is true but I do know it is awfully weird to have that going on. If they would have come to my door I would have told them it's none of their business if I own a gun. I do own a Glock 9mm but it's perfectly legal so they have no need to know about it.

FWIW: The way I read the 2nd amendment is this:

A well regulated militia [which is made up of ordinary citizens, not professional soldiers] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People [ordinary citizens] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [so they will have weapons to bring with them when they are called up to form the militia]

But, what do I know?

If they would have come to my door I would have told them it's none of their business if I own a gun. I do own a Glock 9mm but it's perfectly legal so they have no need to know about it.

#82 | Posted by everlong

Did you purchase it legally through a gun dealer?

Why you dumb fucks keep bringing up car antennas is beyond me? Are you just stupid or what?

#66 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-21 11:08 AM | Flags: Self Retort; Trig

Jeff responds, "It was pretty hilarious and I thought you'd find humor in it. It's certainly become a long-standing joke utilized quite frequently on the DR."

I read the controversy, but was not in a position to reply, even had I wanted to at the time.

If I mock someone, I always try to provide reason why the mockery is deserved. I don't like to jump-in and 'gang' some victim due to some reason others promote - however much of a stick-in-the-mud or supercilious that makes me appear.

I've pretty much given up attempting to discuss anything with Bob. However, and given the environment is Buffalo (NYC in a bucolic way), not having a gun is the 'norm' for that city of cowards, afraid of fear itself, and who collectively hate the tool they guarantee only the criminal has. In place of that, and not carrying any other tool of defense, an antenna is a very good idea for personal defense.

However, the example I provided would happen to Dundee, above, will surely happen to Bob in Buffalo, if the criminal attacker calls 911, first, and falsely claims that Bob is the attacker ...

Bob could go to jail for any damage he did in his defense, and might see jail time even if he didn't harm the 'victim'.

That's the chicken-shit puling yellow steaked poltroons of Leftism for you ... running scared of guns and shadows and every other fear, except for dictatorial party domination using their idea of a "Safe Society"!

Commie wannabes, which paleo-communist regime in Russia are in the news in FEAR of the personal armament that has taken place in Russia (naturally by the act of arming themselves!), and intent on removing their FEAR by banning weapons ... including antennii, Bob you boob ...

I do own a Glock 9mm but it's perfectly legal so they have no need to know about it.

#82 | Posted by everlong

If you bought it from a dealer you filled out a yellow piece of paper and had an instant check. The feds Don't have that paper you filled out because the dealer still has it. When he goes out of business he has to send them all in. Some day the feds will gather up all that paper and it may not be when the dealer goes out of business. A simple law change and they have access to it. If they have a serial number of a gun they can trace it to you with the laws they have now.

This literal lie about guns going to Mexico from the USA is repeated here, as fact.

These, for the most part, are stooges for the Democratic party and who will lie in order to convince others to believe them, and join the collective attempting to destroy freedom, capitalism and our constitution.

Now, they know that their "Healthcare" lies and efforts to enforce socialism/communism on the USA will fail. They will turn to a National Defense Force, to police society's neighborhoods and keep them safe, when "Cap and Tax" follows "Healthcare" into the trashbin of efforts to turn the nation into a communist society; ruled by the Democratic Party of collective cowards and verminous dictatorial idiots.

It is a huge lie that only the 'Militia' was to be the ones having weapons (ages 18-45), on the face of it. How could the Founders thought to have denied the widow's son the defense of the homestead, in a violent world of that age? Say, someone between the age of 9-17? Or, denied the use of firearms in defense to the widow, herself?

They would not have, and neither did they do that!

Instead, they made it a right of all citizens (The People) to have firearms, or whatever is the best tool of defense available.

However, the liars of the Left will NEVER acknowledge that reality, and since they are base and vicious idiots, who want everyone to do it their collective way. They are the 'gang' of petty tyrants that our constitution used to protect society against ... the paleo-slave owners of society ... Democrats ...

This literal lie about guns going to Mexico from the USA is repeated here, as fact.

it's not so much a lie as it is a blatant disregard of any other method for drug gangs to obtain weapons.

namely...the rest of the planet and their own military and police forces. anti-gun lefties can't tell you exactly what percentage of weapons that are used in drug cartel crime come from the USA, but it "has to be a lot".

One more method to garner sympathy for their cause by ignorant, hyper sensitive, easily persuaded sheeple.

DAPROF

The second amendment had nothint (spelled: nothing) to do with an individual right to bear arms.
----snip-----------

....

#59 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-21 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag: Clueless once more

Bob, bob, bob....once again your ignorance is only outweighed by your inability to do any real argument or research.

Weave your way over to www.guncite.com and actually READ some of the "historical documents" and other articles, particularly on the use of the comma.

Or not, as I imagine will actually be the case. It is so hard for "some people" ( to quote B.O.) to actually know WTF they are talking about.

Hopefully you will and maybe learn something.

I'm always puzzled by people who can present rational arguments on why pot should be legalized but guns should be outlawed. Though if pot were legalized there might be less need for guns...

#6 | Posted by valis at 2009-07-20 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag - DUMB ASS COMMENT

You are wrong, BB.
I have been pepper sprayed (annoying), maced (what was that?) and can tell you, you can function normally after being doused by either. But the vision of a firearm will stop me dead in my tracks.
As for a pump shotgun, yeah, just the sound of the mech action will cause a grown man to soil himself if he is in a position he should not be. Like going out the door of the 7-11 you just pistol whipped the cashier in, and you think no one else is there.
Since the man has his back to you, you can see the enlarged wet spot form as he loses control of his bowels.
Been there.
Or they start to shake uncontrollably, to the point they fall over.
Been there.
Oh. The best advice I can give to anyone whom finds themselves dealing with an armed criminal: Never let their weapon leave your sight, when it does, the moment it does, YOU start the fight, as you are about to die. Make it good, worthy of a story or a song, as you will have a better chance at living another day. It is your life, if you wont fight for it, you dont deserve it.

As anyone who might have *ever* considered themself to be a 'liberal' (politically) knows that it was the "Liquor Lobby", and in concert with South'ren Democrats (and California) to outlaw the use of marijuanna by using the color of the law. Otherwise, the neo-slaves of the South weren't buying their expensive booze, but rather concentrating on homebrew and marijuanna.

Voila! The BATF was created to stick another gun in the face of the poor ... Democrats or their ilk ... you can tell them because they are telling you what to do, say, feel, think, how to live and now how and when to die ...

Communist dreamers, that's what the term "progressive" means, and with Democrats as The Party.

If you bought it from a dealer you filled out a yellow piece of paper and had an instant check. The feds Don't have that paper you filled out because the dealer still has it. When he goes out of business he has to send them all in. Some day the feds will gather up all that paper and it may not be when the dealer goes out of business. A simple law change and they have access to it. If they have a serial number of a gun they can trace it to you with the laws they have now.

#87 | Posted by Sniper

I'm very aware of all that, which is why I said I owned it legally. My problem is with them coming to my door asking if I own a gun. They probably were doing it for the reason they said, but it still has a strange feeling about it. Especially with all the talk about clamping down on gun owners and ammunition. In other words, they could have been just going around finding out who owned a gun for whatever reason.

I would have to disagree with you. If a criminal wants a gun, he/she will probably not go through a 7 day waiting period and/or seek gun education classes. These are just a few of the many measures that are being taken in the name of gun control. Niether of these laws detour the common criminal, they simply make the law abiting citizen go through more red tape to own a gun. There is no doubt that the gun industry goes a bit far in the guns it manufactures. I would admit that one does not require a Desert Eagle .50 cal to defend their home. that said, it is clear the laws on the books are not helping to control the criminals from obtaining a firearm, it is only making it more and more difficult for the consumer who has no intention of using the weapon for criminal purposes.

Not sure why the author is against gun control. He was able to get a gun and he had to go thru the process of gun control to get it.

I do own a Glock 9mm but it's perfectly legal so they have no need to know about it.

#82 | Posted by everlong

Would you tell them if you had a illegal hand gun? Just because one possesses a handgun that is not bought thru a dealer does that make it illegal? Is there a way to make an "illegal" handgun legal or once one becomes "illegal" is it always illegal?

Donner tries some rhetoric, "Just because one possesses a handgun that is not bought thru a dealer does that make it illegal?"

Only the most ignorant of the Left believe, or hope that to be true. So, if you were intellectually honest, you'd try answering your own rhetorical questions, and prove you have reasoning ability.

Instead, Dunder asks another silly question, "Is there a way to make an "illegal" handgun legal ...(?)"

Your ilk wishes that all guns were 'illegal!' Instead, you pretend that there is such a thing as an "illegal" gun. What dunces you make of your collective in regurgitating this propaganda pap for the uninformed!

Inanity continues at this Leftists 'speed', "(or) ... is it always illegal?"

That's the point as it is the Left's fondest wish that guns could be made 'illegal'.

Petty tyrants and their propandistic leaders lie in unison ... that's what a collective bunch of party over nation idiots always do in their goosestepping way ...

Tadowe you are creepy weird! I was just asking a question! If you don't know then just say so! I have no desire to make all guns illegal. I own guns. I even ...I mean... a friend of mine...has a gun that was given to me err him before he entered the state and he didn't report it when he came in (He forgot OK!?) so it might actually be considered "illegal". I was just wondering if there is a way to "fix" that like by going to a dealer or whatever.

Sheese!

I don't really like the gun control laws of Calif but I do think there needs to be some measure of control on them as they do fall into the wrong hands. Honestly, I am not sure where the balance lies.

Tadowe you are creepy weird! I was just asking a question!

You should know better than to ask tad a question or even address him at all. Sanan eloquently hit the tadowe nail on the head earlier this evening.

Don't be shy. You know exactly why we bring it up.

#71 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-07-21 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag

No dumb ass I don't. Why don't you tell me why you have such a fascination with car antennas. Are you morons?

#101 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-21 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag: hilarious ff!

Goat joins the Left in making me the subject, "You should know better than to ask tad a question or even address him at all. Sanan eloquently hit the tadowe nail on the head earlier this evening."

Too much! I answered the "questions" which weren't any such thing, and you know it, but display your personal spite.

What 'guns' are "illegal", Mr. Goat? How can the gun be made "illegal" against the constitution, Mr. Bright? How can it then be made "legal" again, Mr. Rhetorically Disadvantaged?

Var der harget, you Leftist "agreeing" schmuck .1.

Weave your way over to www.guncite.com and actually READ some of the "historical documents" and other articles, particularly on the use of the comma.

#91 | Posted by daprof at 2009-07-21 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag

I READ the second amendment---why don't you do it. Here is my interpretation---let's hear YOURS.

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.

The activist judges on the USSC have changed the meaning--not the wording of the second amendment.

A well regulated militia---USSC---ignore that part.

being necessary to a free State--USSC--ehhh we don't need that part either.

the right of the people---USSC--Let's change that to INDIVIDUALS---much shorter, and I'm sure that's what the founders REALLY meant.

To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed---USSC---well wait a minute---let's change this part to--shall be infringed as government sees fit.

So now the NEW second amendment MEANS:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

BUT---the words haven't changed a bit. The WORDS are still:

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.

Neat trick, huh. Your turn.

"Goat joins the Left in making me the subject"

Goattroll only speaks for himself. He does the same thing to everybody, i.e., making his opponent the subject. Check out how many times he brings up Bob's car antenna on any given day.

#102 | Posted by Zorg_the_Vogon at 2009-07-21 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can answer the question too shipdit. Maybe you just aren't bright enough---get a big person to help.

I have been pepper sprayed (annoying), maced (what was that?) and can tell you, you can function normally after being doused by either.

#93 | Posted by gitmboy at 2009-07-21 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag

B U L L S H I T

"B U L L S H I T"

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-21 07:26 PM | Reply

A car antenna, on the other hand ...

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-07-21 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag

WTF are you talking about? Lay off the paint chips.

A car antenna, on the other hand ...

#108 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-21 07:30 PM

Plausable

BB

#108 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-21 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag

What is it with you morons? Is stupidity now contagious? Is there a new STUPID BUG that is infecting brains?

Check out how many times he brings up Bob's car antenna on any given day.

#105 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-07-21 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag

Goat rarely brings up a car antenna---he's incredibly stupid---but not that stupid. Why don't you explain your point---these other idiots can't seem to make any sense. You seem to think the car antenna is funny---why is that---are you a low grade moron that can only see the funny side of things that other low grade morons can see the humor in? Explain the funny part.

I remember BB telling somebody that he could poke their eyeballs out with an antenna before they could draw a gun and shoot him dead. Better watch out BB says he is Zoro with a antenna

I remember BB telling somebody that he could poke their eyeballs out with an antenna before they could draw a gun and shoot him dead. Better watch out BB says he is Zoro with a antenna

#113 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2009-07-21 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag

You are a liar.

The only time I mentioned a car antenna was that I said it was better than a gun you can't reach. Now where is the funny part?

BB, No thats what you said. You said you were faster with a car antenna, than he was on the draw. You said you could poke out his eyes before he drew his gun.

Bob-

Shut up.

BB, No thats what you said. You said you were faster with a car antenna, than he was on the draw. You said you could poke out his eyes before he drew his gun.

#115 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2009-07-21 07:41 PM | Reply | Flag

You are a liar. If I had said such a thing then, I would say it now.

How about a link you lying POS---my posts are continuous, and I hear there is even an archive with every post ever made someplace.

Bottom line

YOU LIE

"You seem to think the car antenna is funny---why is that---are you a low grade moron that can only see the funny side of things that other low grade morons can see the humor in? Explain the funny part.

#112 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

WTF are you talking about? I don't think it's funny at all. I think only unimaginative morons like Goatman keep bringing it up because they're too fucking stupid to think of anything original.

I remember it too.

bOoB -- you have proven hundreds of times to have a notoriously bad memory. Your credibility to remember past posts is pretty much nil.

BTW, a marshmallow you can get to is better than a gun you can't get to. Your point in the "can't get to" BS is . . .?

I think only unimaginative morons like Goatman keep bringing it up because they're too fucking stupid to think of anything original.

More lies, null?

Oh well. To be expected. FIgures you bond with the number 1 liar on the DR.

BTW, the car antennae thing is hilarious. Null has proven many times he has not sense of humor, so his analysis is pretty much useless.

I'll let you have the last word again, null. You and bOoB on the same thread are just a little too much.

#120
#121

Just reeling in these fucking trolls tonight. LOL.

"Bob-

Shut up."

Posted by JOE at 2009-07-21 07:43 PM |

Joe-

Give up.

This site is consistently more entertaining than broadcast TV.

Nice work Rogers, I'm sure it was on purpose.

I think the car atenna is a good idea that most people would not think of ... when threatened by anyone. I hadn't thought of that, and would still be looking for rocks and sticks/boards. Now, unarmed, I can at least get some life threatening strokes on my attacker's face and neck with a nice telescoping antenna ...

Thanks again, Bob.

(I laugh because Bobby probably hates my conservative 'agreement'...)

Tadowe

You are the only person on the DR who I have less respect for than Goatman. Your agreement or disagreement is meaningless.

Here is one of many post by BB.

I'll follow your lead and make up something ridiculous to disprove your scenario.

The guy could be a Chuck Norris ninja and take your car antennae and then carve a crop circle in your left butt cheek.

Posted by Pirate at 2008-07-01 12:45 PM

If the guy were Chuck Norris, he wouldn't need the knife. It's not ridiculous at all. I will gladly give you a knife and take out your eyes with a car antennae then whip you till you cry like a little girl. You can walk down the street with a car antennae and the cops won't stop you. The point is you think a gun is a defensve weapon. It is not. It is an offensive weapon. If you are under seige, it is a good time to have a gun, but if the government is on the other side, your gun won't help. Waco proved that.

The problem is that the bad guys always make the first move--that being the case, your gun is useless if they consider that you will have a weapon and take it into account.

The guy who will rob you on the street MUST assume you have a gun and treat you accordingly when he holds you up.

The burglar who comes into your house MUST assume you have a weapon and act accordingly. But usually, if they know you have weapons, they break in when you aren't there and take your weapons. You don't think these bad guys BUY their weapons do you?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-01 12:54 PM

I'd rather have a car antennae than a gun ...

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-01 12:40 PM

Posted by goatman at 2008-07-01 09:57 PM | Reply

Why not quote the whole thing?

Guy pulls a knife, you pull a gun.

Posted by Pirate at 2008-07-01 12:28 PM | Reply |

Guy pulls a gun first--takes your gun.

I would say any criminal that tries to hold someone up with a knife is a fool, but if he has a knife and you make a move, you could be sliced pretty bad and there's no guarantee you shoot him or don't have the gun used on you. No guarantee the bullet won't go through him and kill someone else.

I'd rather have a car antennae than a gun in that situation. Even a rock or a club.

Thinking you will be the only one with a gun is wishful thinking.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-01 12:40 PM | Reply

You want a fucking invitation?

Pay attention!

#29 | Posted by Zatoichi

repubs don't pay-they collect.

This morning in my front yard:

Scheifox

I doubt your fantasy stories about being attacked by guys with guns and knives and killing them. What a super hero you are. I guess they died instantly and didn't have the heart to pull the trigger on you--or maybe your first shot was in the barrel of their gun. Were they over 12 yrs old? Under 90?

Unless the guy has already stabbed you, a car antenna is very effective. You don't need ninja skills. If you think you can't take eyes out with one, I doubt you know what a car antennae is. I'll take a three foot reach and speed over a guy with a knife any day. It's like a guy with a sword against a guy with a dagger. No contest. Try it sometime. You have a rubber knife and goggles--give your opponent a car antennae. If he whacks your goggles three times on one side, that eye is gone. If you stab him, you win. Give it a shot--see what happens. You should also wear more head protection, and gloves. Antennaes are hell on knuckles.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-02 05:26 A

I doubt you pants pissers could handle a good car antennae. You can't shoot people in the back with a car antennae.

You might be able to handle a spiked heel--if you can get one off fast enough.

www.sjgames.com

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-02 06:42 PM |

#131 | Posted by cmbell73

What's your point, dumbshit?

#130 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2009-07-21 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag

Exactly--you prove yourself a LIAR dumb ass.

Nowhere do I suggest a car antenna is better or faster than a gun.

I doubt you are man enough to apologize since you were stupid enough to post the post that proves you to be a liar.

This morning in my front yard:

I doubt you are man enough to apologize ...

You've never apologized for your plethora of lies, bOoB. I guess you aren't much of a man either using your own criteria.

#134: The rest of the story. I don't know why this particular PC drops my replies so much. It never happens on others I use.

Good shooting! But how did the guy with the antennae do at teh same range?

Nowhere do I suggest a car antenna is better or faster than a gun.

I doubt you are man enough to apologize since you were stupid enough to post the post that proves you to be a liar.

#133 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-21 09:51 PM

You are a liar.
The only time I mentioned a car antenna was that I said it was better than a gun you can't reach. Now where is the funny part?
#114 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB AT 2009-07-21 07:38 PM

Why you said it yourself BOB, but I will admitt this you started off with a knife.Im willing to man up to that. Unlike you to man up to anything you say is wrong. Sorry for the mistake

CMBell

I stand by everything I said about car antennas--then and now. But I never said a car antenna was a good option against a man with a gun.

You simply aren't man enough to say you are a fucking liar.

Fortunately I don't have that restriction, you fucking liar.

;-)

You simply aren't man enough to say you are a fucking liar.

Fortunately I don't have that restriction, you fucking liar.

;-)

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-21 10:51 PM

I love Guns and I am a liberal. Republicans want us dead so we must be prepared.

I hate guns and I am a conservative.

Rex but how will you kill those who need killing?

With my bare hands.

Starting with Boyd.

"The smokestacks on the moon are producing.....that's right, you got it....car antennaes."

-Repo Man

Well, sorta.

"Starting with Boyd.

#144 | Posted by r_zeitgeist "

I'd slap you but shit splatters.

Ha, you would 'slap me', but then you would get the living shit beat out of you.

I know you're a leftist, but try and occupy reality on occasion.

but then you would get the living shit beat out of you.

I know you're a leftist, but try and occupy reality on occasion.

#148 | Posted by r_zeitgeist

Anytime you can get your fat ass to LA we'll go Octagon. You loud-mouthed internet pussy.

Considering how many guns the American public has and how corrupt the US Govt is - its amazing that really zero percentage of the gun owing public have gone on a bloody rampage - this of course could change at any time!

#14 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2009-07-20 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm guessing you missed the story where the man shot up the Holocaust Museum a few months back.

"I'm guessing you missed the story where the man shot up the Holocaust Museum a few months back."

Nope. I did not miss that. I also remember Joseph Stalin, Mao, the University of Wisconsin SDS bomb murders (done for "peace"), Squeaky Fromme trying to kill Ford and...I mean the best left wing looney logic...(drumroll).....
Chapman shooting John Lennon!!! I mean, how do you left nuts blame THAT on Reagan, Bush or even George Wallace????

from above...

"Why does the author think somebody wants his gun?"

More of the same Fear Mongering by the Right and the Right Bastion of the NRA. I can understand w
the NRA, tell a bunch of idiots that the "Man" is coming for your guns leads to record business. I guess the GOP is just using it to drum up unsubstantiated racist fears that Obama for some unknown reason wants everybodies guns...

Sorta like the scenario below...

"Oh, lookie paw, the Black man done come for my gun...aw, lordie what's we gonna do".

"I know what's we gonna do", paw quipped pulling out and pumping his Browning Shotgun.

"Oh paw", said the son, "I's so glad you is here. I jus' not know what to do if'n that black man done come for my gun"...

So what is it exactly about the White man that has him so fricking scared of everyone else? Being both white and male, I find it hard to fathom at times...

btw...Real men fight with fists...paranoid cowards pull guns...

You want to shoot something? Play a video game.
You can shoot shit all day and not harm a thing.

Hell, if you own a gun and want to shoot it all day at the firing range, that's ok with me too. Just dont buy into this paranoid fear mongering crap.
Your just being manipulated if you do...

More of the same Fear Mongering by the Right and the Right Bastion of the NRA. I can understand w
the NRA, tell a bunch of idiots that the "Man" is coming for your guns leads to record business. I guess the GOP is just using it to drum up unsubstantiated racist fears that Obama for some unknown reason wants everybodies guns...

It probably comes from experience. The left holds the position of being anti-gun. Sometimes vehemently. There are reasonable folks in your ranks, but they're few and far between.

Experience tells gun owners that democrats like to pass laws with wish-washy interpretations concerning which gun should be legal and which guns are "cop killing military hardware". Experience tells gun owners that democrats use the "why do you even need that kind of gun" 'logic' when drafting these laws. Experience has shown that democrats are the people who want to ban guns.

So what is it exactly about the White man that has him so fricking scared of everyone else? Being both white and male, I find it hard to fathom at times...

btw...Real men fight with fists...paranoid cowards pull guns...

It's called an equalizer, numb nuts. Real men fight to survive with the weapon they have. If they were smart enough to have a gun, your fists are fucking useless.

You want to shoot something? Play a video game.
You can shoot shit all day and not harm a thing.

Hell, if you own a gun and want to shoot it all day at the firing range, that's ok with me too. Just dont buy into this paranoid fear mongering crap.
Your just being manipulated if you do...

And you're being manipulated into believing that everyone with a gun is afraid of black people. Punch yourself in the face.

Bobbie, Bobbie, Bobbie...

I knew you wouldn't bother to get educated but instead continue with your own prejudices and ignorance

Oh wait...that's how you always operate, bless your heart.

Is it a reading problem or a comprehension problem or are actually being held captive someplace, at least mentally?

Are you a cape or a water buffalo? A resident of Buffalo?

Would you tell them if you had a illegal hand gun? Just because one possesses a handgun that is not bought thru a dealer does that make it illegal? Is there a way to make an "illegal" handgun legal or once one becomes "illegal" is it always illegal?

#97 | Posted by donnerboy

First off, I wouldn't own an illegal gun and I guess you'd be a fool to tell them if you had one. As for your question, I'm sure you could find some way to go about registering a gun that wasn't previously registered without getting into trouble. They would probably trace the gun to see if it had been used in any crimes, but I don't see why you couldn't make an illegal gun legal. But to really answer your question, I don't know for sure.

what do ALL of the countries under dictatorships and killers have in common
only the government has weapons...or even remotely similar to our 2nd amendment...
#17 | Posted by afkabl2

....All of Africa...most of the former Soviet bloc countries....any country in Asia (except more democratic ones actually and China). Oh, the middle east! Iraq had LOTS of guns. And South America. You idiot. Besides urban Iran and MAYBE China, there isn't a dictatorship in the world with gun control.

Did anyone else notice the gun did him absolutely no good whatsoever? He didn't have it and probably couldn't have it at work. And when he was in his home, he didn't use it and didn't need to use it. In fact, if he had started shooting and the other people were armed (rather unlikely statistically), they probably would have fired back and took him or his son out. Also, notice he didn't bother calling the cops while they were in the house. Makes me wonder if the story even is true.

Having a gun makes you feel better but it doesn't make you safer.

However, I do support your right to own a handgun despite the second amendment saying the right to bear arms applies to militias. The reasoning was that states needed their own militias in times of uprisings or invasion, not to fend off the Feds. This occured because the Federal army was not exactly large, well supplied, well funded, or particuarly mobile. See the War of 1812. The reason the second amendment now applies outside of militas? An activist court that you hate until it benefits you. But precedent is precedent.

#156 Sycophant> Beside urban Iran and MAYBE China, there isn't a dictatorship in the world with gun control.

How about North Korea? Cuba?

On another note, someone recently said that liberals tend to read the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to limit guns to what was available at the time it was written (while obviously NOT limiting the 1st Amendment in the same way). But he speculated that if they really felt that way, why would they have a problem with a citizen carrying a musket or black powder pistol with them anywhere they go?

#152 | Posted by earthmuse at 2009-07-22 07:38 AM

#157 Sycophant> Having a gun makes you feel better but it doesn't make you safer.

So if somebody broke into my house and I held them at gunpoint until the cops arrived (many long minutes later), are you saying me and the burglar were both mistaken as to the ability of firearms ownership in keeping me from harm?

>However, I do support your right to own a handgun despite the second amendment saying the right to bear arms applies to militias.

Far too many constitutional scholars (some on the left end of the political spectrum) AND many quotes from the founders, say it is a right of individuals. Remember that States do not have rights, they have powers. The text of the 2nd Amendment ends with: "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis mine)

#157 | Posted by Sycophant at 2009-07-22 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag: Failed constitutional law.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

Having a gun makes you feel better but it doesn't make you safer. -Sycophant

Sorry, but my gun makes me much safer. Before I owned a gun I had zero defense against a home invasion, car jacking, or mugging. Now I have a great defense against all of those. Sure, every situation is different. You may not get the jump on whoever is attacking you, but if my life is in danger already I'm pulling my gun and shooting. Even if I get shot first I am still safer with a gun because I may still be able to kill or severely hamper my attacker.

I think having a gun maybe would just make you feel better since it sounds like you have no idea how to use one.

"I do support your right to own a handgun despite the second amendment saying the right to bear arms applies to militias."

Strange....The Bill of Rights set forth INDIVIDUAL rights and even the Second Amendment says, "....the right of the PEOPLE..." but you maintain that this one amendment isn't setting forth the right of individuals but the right of of "militias?" Hmmmm...can you 'splain that to me? What other "militia rights" are set forth in the Bill of Rights?" ALL the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to the rights of people, individuals...why is the Second Amendment different? I'm sure you have a very well studied and reasoned explanation for us.

"Even if I get shot first"

Andy Jackson got shot first in a duel once.
He carried that pistol ball in his chest the rest of his life. Andy shot more accurately. The other guy died.

Now I have a great defense against all of those.

#162 | Posted by everlong

Make damn sure you have the proper load in your weapon. You do not want your shots to pass through the perp and/or the walls of your domicile and go through your neighbor's wall, possibly hitting somebody there: that would be bad.

Also, as was suggested strongly to me, I hope you have a lawyer on retainer, JIC. Though the shooting of a perp is completely justified, there will be legal ramifications. If the perp is merely wounded, you may (will) have even greater problems.

If the perp is merely wounded, you may (will) have even greater problems.

#165 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-07-22 11:43 AM

Too bad one can't just shoot to disable, huh?

Well, Zot, hopefully I never have to use the gun for self-defense. And it's got 15 rounds of hollow point 115 grain ammo in the clip. It will stop someone.

#163 | Posted by jestgettinalong

The second amendment has a simple conditional statement re the militia. That people who claim to understand English don't understand this is mindnumbing.

The Bill of Rights interpretation is just that - an interpretation. And it is opposed by the entire standing army vs. militia debate which surrounded the second amendment at the time of its passage. The SC has, at different times, gone with one interpretation or the other making both equally valid or invalid.

hopefully I never have to use the gun for self-defense.

#167 | Posted by everlong

Nobody ever wants to...

"...15 rounds of hollow point 115 grain ammo in the clip"

That's a damn big magazine y'a got there. Add one in the barrel on hot standby gives y'a at least 15 opportunities to miss.

I always thought the second amendment was written rather poorly, almost intentionally vague.

"I always thought the second amendment was written rather poorly, almost intentionally vague." - Kanrei

It was written somewhat vaguely, on purpose, because it was a compromise in the standing army vs militia debate. But it wasn't written poorly - the writers knew exactly what they were writing. That we try to interpret it in our frame of reference and thus it seems confusing is a reflection on our perspective, not theirs.

That's a damn big magazine y'a got there. Add one in the barrel on hot standby gives y'a at least 15 opportunities to miss.

#169 | Posted by ZOT

LOL. I'm actually a good shot but you never know how you'll shoot in a hot situation. So, the more bullets the better I say. The Glock 9mm comes standard with a 15 round clip, while other Glock's can hold 17.

I say "written poorly" from a grammar point of view.

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.

It is obviously an "if/then" statement, but it is near impossible to decipher where the "if" and "then" should go. To change the placement of them changes the meaning.

"I say "written poorly" from a grammar point of view."

And I agree. But to understand it, you have to see it from their point of view, from how they used the language. And that unequivocally makes it a militia issue. And that's the reason for the "Bill of Rights" argument.

So, are you saying that it reads, "so that each state may have a millitia, the right of individuals to own guns may not be infridnged" -OR-

"if each state has a millitia, there is no need for the individual to own guns?"

I can see where it says both, depending on where the "if" is and where the "then" is.

Basically, was the second amendment intended to give states private armies free of Federal control, or was it intended for all individuals to be available for a militia and should own a gun?

You people actually believe that the founders only meant that the only people allowed to own a gun had to be in a militia? Do you realize how little sense that makes? Think of the time they lived in. Do you really believe that they intended to make it illegal for a homeowner or settler to own a gun. It just doesn't make sense.

Think of the time they lived in. Do you really believe that they intended to make it illegal for a homeowner or settler to own a gun.

Considering they just took up arms to overthrow the government, it is conceivable.

At the time of the Revolution Ohio was considered the Frontier. They still had Indians wandering around in just about every state. The English were still a little sore about getting their butts kicked. The country was a dangerous place and it was every mans responsibility to own a firearm and keep it well maintained.

Stir, if that were the case, and it may be, why even include " well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State?" This is what I mean by poorly written. We really need to re-examine this one and possibly rewrite it to be clearer.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

We really need to re-examine this one and possibly rewrite it to be clearer.

#180 | Posted by kanrei

And just which one of our esteemed political minds of today do you wish to REWRITE it? LOL

And just which one of our esteemed political minds of today do you wish to REWRITE it?

None. This is for legal and grammar experts to try to decipher exactly what it says and to restate it without changing the meaning.

Read what these guys wrote then look around at the world today and then say that they did not understand the nature of man.

Nature of man remains fairly constant, but the tools availble to him change, as do the words he uses to communicate. Every other amendment is written very clearly. "Congress shall pass NO law," etc, but this one is not. There is no need to defend the Founders to me as the Constitution is my Bible, but today's man is, to be fair, stupid.

to be fair, stupid.

Agreed! I'm laughing so hard I can barely see.

I have been pepper sprayed (annoying), maced (what was that?) and can tell you, you can function normally after being doused by either.

#93 | Posted by gitmboy at 2009-07-21 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag

B U L L S H I T

#107 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-21 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I have been pepper sprayed. Three times. And it absolutely devastates me. However, I know several guys that have been pepper sprayed and it gave them painful red eyes, and made them sneeze a bit...but were otherwise functioning normally.

I am glad to see old bob believes he is the spokes person for the physiology of every person on the planet.

Law enforement will tell you the safest way to handle this situation is to give the robber the money and call the police afterwards letting them the experts handle the situation. See most likely there might have been one or two people dead if you tried to handle this with a gun. The government is not trying to remove your deer or bird hunting priveleges here but there are plenty red necks running around this country flashing their 9mm pistols in bars these days and if you dont see the handrighting on the wall this country will go the way of Rome.

"I always thought the second amendment was written rather poorly, almost intentionally vague." - Kanrei

It was written somewhat vaguely, on purpose, because it was a compromise in the standing army vs militia debate. But it wasn't written poorly - the writers knew exactly what they were writing. That we try to interpret it in our frame of reference and thus it seems confusing is a reflection on our perspective, not theirs.

#171 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-07-22 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I don;t think it is vague at all.

At the time, militia's were private citizens that owned guns. There name was on a muster sheet somewhere...and that is IT. They owned a gun and if the government had need it asked them to come on down with their gun and get to fighting.

They wrote it to ensure individuals had the right to keep and bear arms so that a well regulated militia could be formed when necessary.....

All the Leftists and petty tyrant Democrats (along with their communist partners) prove just how collectively stupid they make of themselves in trying to justify why the 2d Amendment is to be taken to be an INFRINGEMENT of the RIGHT, and also say that the RIGHT shall not be INFRINGED.

Party liars and abysmally stupid in promoting an oxymoron as the INTENT of the Founders.

Real-life collective idiots and base liars for party ...

"handrighting(sic)"

Posted by JoeLabey at 2009-07-22 02:02 PM

Whatever that is.

Remember.
When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

#175 | Posted by kanrei

I'm stating that it says that each state should have a militia (instead of the country having a standing army). And therefore, everybody should be allowed weapons - if they are or could be - members of that militia.

"Think of the time they lived in. Do you really believe that they intended to make it illegal for a homeowner or settler to own a gun."

Except that most people did not live on the frontier but in towns and cities. And the focus was on those people.

Some more examples of proper gun control.

The left holds the position of being anti-gun.

I didn't know the cops were all left-wing.

#189 | Posted by TGNH

Yep, as I pointed out, it was clear to them what they wrote. To us, now, it makes less sense. And the key point was what you mentioned, the names in the militia were written somewhere. Yet it was vague in the sense that it allowed the state to determine who could/would be in the militia, thus allowing the state its "right". It was also somewhat vague in that it did not disallow the creation of a standing army, the issue of the time and of this amendment.

#190 | Posted by tadowe

You need to use more adjectives when you write.

AI is obviously a member of the collective, "And therefore, everybody should be allowed weapons - if they are or could be - members of that militia."

You see an infringement to a natural right and which was recognized by the Founders. They acknowledged it as the RIGHT of the People, which shall not be infringed.

You are selling the idea that the Founders were similar idiots to your ilk, and that they who would create an oxymoron as an amendment, and list it as an infringement which would not be infringed.

You make yourself into a stupid idiot, by doing so. That's a fact, you are stupid for party ideology in wanting to infringe our natural right recognized by our constitution.

I can't begin to describe how despicable that is to me. However, having said that, I'll give it a try: you are one of the petty dictatorial vermin that is the collective rot in our nation ... neo-communist hatemongers for party over liberty, freedom and the most liberal law in the history of the world ...

Go straight to hell all you who try and make this lie against our nation's constitution.

Yep, as I pointed out, it was clear to them what they wrote. To us, now, it makes less sense. And the key point was what you mentioned, the names in the militia were written somewhere. Yet it was vague in the sense that it allowed the state to determine who could/would be in the militia, thus allowing the state its "right". It was also somewhat vague in that it did not disallow the creation of a standing army, the issue of the time and of this amendment.

#196 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-07-22 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

But you are reading into it and assuming that the founding fathers meant ALL of the people that owned guns would be part of the militia. It only says the right of the people (which means ALL people) shall not be infringed...but does not use such clear language to describe a militia. They never said so that all people can serve in a well regulated militia...it only says that a militia is necessary therefore ALL people have the right to keep and bear arms.

"oxymoron"

Jumbo shrimp
Tight slacks
Military intelligence

#198 | Posted by tadowe

Tad, you very obviously don't have a clue when it comes to the Constitution and the ideas of the "founding fathers". Faschists like you are what have brought this country to it's knees. You should apologize to the good people of this country for your inanity.

Except that most people did not live on the frontier but in towns and cities. And the focus was on those people.

#193 | Posted by AILtd

Check your facts. I have a copy of this at home. It's an intersting look at history.

Except that most people did not live on the frontier but in towns and cities. And the focus was on those people.

#193 | Posted by AILtd

Check your facts. I have a copy of this at home. It's an intersting look at history.

TGNH says, "... it only says that a militia is necessary therefore ALL people have the right to keep and bear arms."

You make the mistake of assuming that the government is giving the 'right', but that is incorrect on the face of it.

Every person has the NATURAL RIGHT to arm themself. You only play into their moronic argument when you lead the inference that this is a Right 'given' to the people.

There is no INFRINGEMENT to that right, and as the amendment indicates. The preposition is a justification to any collective who think government has the 'right' to disarm the People, and denying that assumption AND stating that that 'right' shall NOT be infringed.

They already know all the contradictions to their inane effort to justify that the 2d is somehow an oxymoron proving their argument, but they'll repeat the same lies and avoid the facts ...

... scum liars who repeat the same propaganda elsewhere to promote ignorance for their party over nation socialist goals, if not here ...

#202 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

I have Stir - when I was getting my M.A. in U.S. history. Even then cities like NYC, Philly and Boston did not like having people carry around guns.

AI avoids the point, "Tad, you very obviously don't have a clue when it comes to the Constitution and the ideas of the founding fathers."

The Amendment is very clear: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You argue that they DID mean that the right was to be infringed in the way you try and dictate it as being; parroting your leftist ideological propaganda. You are a moron who believes that the right which shall not be infringed, is actually to be infringed.

QED, a stupid idiot for party ideology over reality ... var der harget, socialist schmuck ...

"Faschists[sic] like you ..."

Fascism evolved out of two socialistic and tyrannical nations: Italy and Nazi Germany. My ideology is in support of a capitalistic system under the law of our constitution; which you desperately hope to change by promoting the 2d Amendment as being a Founder's oxymoron.

You are the stupid 'fascist' socialist, marching in lockstep with the collective in attempting to promote a loss of individual freedom, by INFRINGING the constitution.

Your attempt at insult is another indication of how ignorant and stupid you make yourself in parroting party propaganda, and attempting a 180 degree spin on reality ... that a US Constitutional Conservative is somehow one of your ilk ...

... what a bunch of scum, trying to rot our constitution into offal and garbage ...

... virtual traitors to our nation's laws ...

lol. No one is after your gun...
Nobody gives a flying f*ck about your gun...

What they care about is too many guns in too
many places being used by people of questionable
judgement.

Keep a loaded gun in your house if you want.
Keep it in reach of your kids if your crazy.

Just keep it out of my bar or my National Park.
Don't want it around me and mine. Sorry, don't
trust you enough not to go crazy, or get mad, or get out of hand, or just be bored.

After reading some of the posts on here, its a certainty that some of you blogging gun owners
are certifiable alright...

and from above...

"...Punch yourself in the face."

#153 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-07-22 08:01 AM

"Oh look Ma, another Axi-Mo-ron". Frankly twit,
I wouldn't even work up a sweat taking u out, I likely bench more than twice what you weigh...

"But you are reading into it and assuming that the founding fathers meant ALL of the people that owned guns would be part of the militia." -

Wrong. I stated that they decided that the country should rely on militias rather than have a standing army. And that those who qualified to serve in a militia would be allowed to own weapons.

"They never said so that all people can serve in a well regulated militia...it only says that a militia is necessary therefore ALL people have the right to keep and bear arms."

No, they never thought that "all" people can serve in a militia. They never thought that women or slaves should. This is where the "vagueness" of the amendment comes in. They merely put the responsibility of defense on militias and wanted those who would/could serve in them to have weapons.

When I hold you in my arms
And I feel my finger on your trigger
I know no one can do me no harm
Because happiness is a warm gun
(bang bang shoot shoot)

Beatles

"The Amendment is very clear: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Tad

Wrong - that is only the second part of the if/then clause. As you would know if you understood the English language and its structure.

"My ideology is in support of a capitalistic system under the law of our constitution;"

Your ideology is a version of Deutschland ueber alles". That makes you a fascist.

So far nothing you have written gives me even a glimmer of belief that you understand the Constitution or the intent of the "founding fathers".

AI continues promoting the 2d as an oxymoron, "I stated that they decided that the country should rely on militias rather than have a standing army. And that those who qualified to serve in a militia would be allowed to own weapons."

"But you are reading into it and assuming that the founding fathers meant ALL of the people that owned guns would be part of the militia." -

Wrong. I stated that they decided that the country should rely on militias rather than have a standing army. And that those who qualified to serve in a militia would be allowed to own weapons.

"They never said so that all people can serve in a well regulated militia...it only says that a militia is necessary therefore ALL people have the right to keep and bear arms."

No, they never thought that "all" people can serve in a militia. They never thought that women or slaves should. This is where the "vagueness" of the amendment comes in. They merely put the responsibility of defense on militias and wanted those who would/could serve in them to have weapons.

#208 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-07-22 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Why are you trying to infer what the founding fathers think regarding the merits of a standing army versus relying on a militia>

Read what the wrote:

"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."

No such if/or clauses. No ambiguity. They believed a well regulated militia was necessary....so therefore the government will NOT infringe upon the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.

No mention about whether they were serving in the militia... no mention of slavery or women.... just a terse statement indicating why they wanted to make sure all people in the US reatined the right to keep and bear arms.

You can't insert anything or read anything into such a short and clear choice of words.

Guns are about power. In the same way that driving in a big truck is about power. Taken to the extreme, abusing your spouse/kids/dog is about power. It's been that way through history, people want to feel powerful and guns give them that feeling. Why do you think they love to talk about their guns, the size, the amount of bullets it holds, what a great shot they are. If they don't already drive a Hummer you know they wish they could.

AI spins, "Wrong - that is only the second part of the if/then clause. As you would know if you understood the English language and its structure."

The prepositional statement is justification for saying that the right shall not be infringed. You attempt to say that there is no 'right' and that only the government can allow a person to arm themself. That is a base lie, and you know it.

AI makes me the subject of discussion, "Your ideology is a version of Deutschland ueber alles". That makes you a fascist."

And, you say you are a history major? I doubt that, because if you were then you would know that those systems were socialist dictatorships, and where in both fascist countries (Italy and Nazi Germany) that the right to bear arms was DENIED, not supported as a natural right by my ideological pinnings: US Constitutional Conservatism.

See? You make a fool of yourself by making me the subject, and lying about that, too.

AI gets deeper in his own shit, "So far nothing you have written gives me even a glimmer of belief that you understand the Constitution or the intent of the founding fathers.

Perhaps, given that the militia is the only People meant by the 2d, how they hoped to deny the RTKBA to those under 17, over 45 (65 at that time period) and women who might find themselves unarmed thereby in a dangerous frontier nation?

Go on, try just one answer, smarty ...

#211 | Posted by tadowe

No, Tad, just your rights. You don't deserve them. You fall into the 1/2 citizen category that the founding fathers avoided at all costs. Obvious reasons.

Crazy maunders, "... It's been that way through history, people want to feel powerful and guns give them that feeling."

This isn't about just 'guns', and since it is about the Right to Keep and Bear ARMS.

Swords will be banned because they give the people a sense of power? Knives, clubs, even screwdrivers (the favorite ARMAMENT of those not wanting to get caught with knife or gun) will be removed because they aren't part of the militia, ages 17-45.

The Obama National Defense Force, proposed by the Brownshirts of the Democratic Party, will have firearms, and arrest anyone with a baseball bat, screwdriver, or ball-peen hammer ...

And then, you'll be safe to vote Democrat at the polling place guarded by the neo-Panther 'militia' ...

"Why are you trying to infer what the founding fathers think regarding the merits of a standing army versus relying on a militia>" - TGNH

Because that was the discussion which this amendment attempted to solve. Thomas Jefferson first suggested that we not have a standing army, and wrote a series of letters in 1787, as the Constitution was being debated, urging James Madison and others to write it into the Constitution.

The idea was, instead of a standing army, for every able-bodied man in the nation to be a member of a local militia, under local control, with a gun in his house. If the nation was invaded, word would come down to the local level and every man in the country would be the army.

To facilitate this, it was suggested that three things were necessary. A ban on a standing army; a provision making every able-bodied male a trained member of a local militia that could come under nation control if the nation was attacked; and a provision making sure every male had a weapon handy if that day ever came.

Alex Hamilton opposed this idea. "If standing armies are dangerous to liberty," Hamilton wrote, "an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions." A citizen's militia, Hamilton noted, "appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it..."

The debates among the Framers of the Constitution led to a clumsy compromise, with the ban on a standing army and universal requirement for membership in a militia chopped away, to be revisited at some (presumably near) future time.

"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."

No such if/or clauses. No ambiguity. They believed a well regulated militia was necessary....so therefore the government will NOT infringe upon the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.
#212 | Posted by TGNH

Wrong. Up to the comma is the "if" (in this case a "since") part. The second relies on the first part. Therefore it is a conditional statement.

"You can't insert anything or read anything into such a short and clear choice of words."

And yet you do - without understanding the issues of the times.

That may have been the debate but it is immaterial to what they WROTE, ratified, and made LAW.

They only made law that because a well regulated militia was necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

PERIOD.

Heck, I have seen senators read the phonebook on the floor of the house... does that mean once a bill is passed, they should have included the names of every person in East Overshoot Indiana? It was part of the debate after all.

Typically because they can't rebut, AI collectively continues, "No, Tad, just your rights. You don't deserve them. You fall into the 1/2 citizen category that the founding fathers avoided at all costs. Obvious reasons."

See? The subject is all about me, now. AI can't justify his oxymoronic claims, since they are refuted ... so the spin is to kill-the-messenger, like the pseudo-intellectual cowards inevitably do.

What an obvious tool for Democrat dictation you are, trying to deny a right of the people ... in that socialist way reminiscent of Hitler's disarmanent of the German people after his socialist collective gained absolute power.

So, as a card holding member of the new socialist order: Progressives, AI spins lile a top to project his socialistic, fascistic attempt to deny the right, as Hitler had done, and by calling conservatives (and me) a 'fascist'.

The liars *always* reveal themselves in this way! Stupid people and announcing their collective ignorance, here.

Thanks again, Rogers ...

Actually I do. The first part of the sentence is a justification for the 2nd part. Because of the need for a militia...the government won't take away anyone's gun.

That is what it says.

In order for the first part to be an "if" clause, it would have to say so that the people can serve in a well regulated militia... or some other such wording directly associating gun ownership with serving.

What they wrote however is a short lead in to why they wanted everyone to be able to keep and bear arms as they see fit.

They don't mandate service, they just say so that a milita can be maintained everyone can keep their gun and the government can't do anything about it.

"You attempt to say that there is no 'right' and that only the government can allow a person to arm themself." - Tad

Correct - only the government can allow that.

"then you would know that those systems were socialist dictatorships,"

False. They were ultra-nationalistic. No socialism. Hitler was anti-socialist to the extent of murder. What "socialistic" programs he implemented were for the purpose of Germany, not for its people. Read up on socialism, it will do you good.

Sorry, Tad, you still show no glimmer.

"That may have been the debate but it is immaterial to what they WROTE, ratified, and made LAW."

You are kidding, right? They debated, made compromises, but that had nothing to do with what they decided. That's your line? Wow. Ok, whatever.

Despite all the sophistic quibbling, the 2d clearly states: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nowhere is there a 'conditional clause' but rather a 'propositional statement', and which comma (",") which affirms that the right shall not be infringed.

If the first clause of the 2d was 'conditional' then it would be an 'infringement' of the right they say shall not be infringed.

The effort to say otherwise is oxymoronic, and so that is what they will call anyone who dares disagree with their stupid illogic ... this 'AI' being one, and obviously 'artificial' ...

How's that socialist creeps?

#221 | Posted by TGNH

TGNH, seriously, nothing occurs or stands in isolation. The key to understanding an end result is to understand how it evolved. If you don't want to understand that, then, well, whatever.

Of course I am not kidding. The debate is immaterial to the law they passed.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," (the reason for what they are about to write)

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And that is it. I see no flowery wording about militia vs standing army.

This is what they WROTE. and this is the LAW they made.

The reasons behind why they wrote it is a fascinating way to spend time, but to infer that the discussions leading to the law somehow change what they wrote is ridiculous.

They words they chose are easily understood. No need to try to climb in their heads and figure out what they meant.

They wrote what they meant.... the right of the People (not some, not half, not a few, but THE people) shall not be infirnged.

Of course I want to understand the why. But that doesn't mean any of it has any bearing on such an easy sentence to read.

"Because of this, then this." It is not an "if this then this"

The words are painfully clear. A militia is necessary so EVERYONE can keep and bear arms.

"If the first clause of the 2d was 'conditional' then it would be an 'infringement' of the right they say shall not be infringed."

It is conditional. The outcome of the standing army vs militia debate. Jefferson believed that, should a standing army become the norm, democracy would be endangered. Others disagreed. People like Alex Hamilton certainly thought no infringement was involved. I guess their problem was that they didn't ask you.

"Of course I am not kidding. The debate is immaterial to the law they passed."

Wrong.

"A militia is necessary so EVERYONE can keep and bear arms."

Wrong.

It is conditional. The outcome of the standing army vs militia debate. Jefferson believed that, should a standing army become the norm, democracy would be endangered. Others disagreed. People like Alex Hamilton certainly thought no infringement was involved. I guess their problem was that they didn't ask you.

#228 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-07-22 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You keep saying this and it persists in being irrelevant.

The debates and compromises are not law. They are how law is made.

The law they MADE is unconditional. Because a militia is necessary, the right of the people shall NOT be infringed.

I see no way to infer they meant only if you served in a militia.

AI continues to blather, "Correct - only the government can allow that."

The government CAN infringe a right of the people to keep and bear arms, so you say. Here is the petty dictator revealing himself, and his party's intent.

"False. They were ultra-nationalistic. No socialism."

See? Nothing but misdirection, even the definition of socialism is denied by them, in order to support their stupid, collective communist egos. Tools of communism.

"Hitler was anti-socialist to the extent of murder."

Wrong.

Wrong.

#229 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-07-22 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Ah the mark of a defeated man. Are you going to hold your breath until you are blue and stamp your feet too?

I thought we wer having a civilized discussion, but to just type your wrong is like typing "I am rubber your glue...."

#232 | Posted by TGNH

You stated that the debate doesn't matter, only the result. So I skipped the debate part and gave you the result. And you still cry. Wow!

"The government CAN infringe a right of the people to keep and bear arms ..."

What rights you have are the rights your government supports. Neither nature nor God nor the universe gave you a right to bear arms or to cover them.

"See? Nothing but misdirection, even the definition of socialism is denied by them, in order to support their stupid, collective communist egos. Tools of communism."

Ah, I didn't realize you don't understand political philosophy or history. My bad.

"More lies, and since Hitler was anti-Soviet Socialist People's Republic, and in favor of his form of socialism,"

God, you're a moron. Because he called himself a "socialist" doesn't make him one. No more than the DDR or North Korea are "people's democratic republics".

Have you _ever_ taken a European history class?

The only thing AI can do now is whine and make the debate about the messengers who refute his ignorant arguments.

It's always this type of intellectual Georgie Porgyism with these creeps ... they scurry out of the light like the collective of vermin they are ...

Not crying at all.

I have directly pointed to where you are mistaken and incorrectly reading the sentence. You have inserted ifs and other nonsense. The bottom line is simple. The founding fathers were not stupid. If they had wanted to make the right to keep and bear arms linked to serving in a militia, it would say exactly that.

It doesn't.

I read what they wrote and made law, you are reading what they waxed nostalgic about before they agreed on what it should say.

Like I said, I have seen debates about laws include reading the phonebook. Is that relevant? If it isn;t, then what criteria will you use to include or exclude the thoughts and ideas of the law makers invovlved?

that is far to ambiguous. Much better that you read what they wrote and made law.

AI runs away, "Because he called himself a "socialist" doesn't make him one."

What about the definition(s) of 'socialism' don't you understand, Mr. Historical Nonsense?

"I have directly pointed to where you are mistaken and incorrectly reading the sentence."

No, you have provided _your_ interpretation. Totally ignoring context. Then stated that context doesn't matter. Absurd.

"I have directly pointed to where you are mistaken and incorrectly reading the sentence."

No, you are mistaken. Because you have removed this from context. Nothing exists outside of context, so you are inherently wrong. And English language structure 101 says you are wrong in your interpretation of the sentence.

AI avoids supporting his position by making others the 'point', "... you have removed this from context. Nothing exists outside of context, so you are inherently wrong."

Explain in what way the 2d Amendment is 'conditional' and why it then states that it, the 2d, shall be 'unconditional.'

Go on, genius, give it a try? Explain why those under 17, or over 45 don't have a right in the 2d, even though it states that the right is unconditional ...

... stupidly moronic history major and socialist creep?

So, if we're being consistent, abortion should now be officially illegal since some states don't allow it.....

Considering how many guns the American public has and how corrupt the US Govt is - its amazing that really zero percentage of the gun owing public have gone on a bloody rampage - this of course could change at any time!

#14 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2009-07-20 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm guessing you missed the story where the man shot up the Holocaust Museum a few months back.

#150 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-07-22 03:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm guessing you missed the story where the man shot up the Holocaust Museum a few months back."

Nope. I did not miss that. I also remember Joseph Stalin, Mao, the University of Wisconsin SDS bomb murders (done for "peace"), Squeaky Fromme trying to kill Ford and...I mean the best left wing looney logic...(drumroll).....
Chapman shooting John Lennon!!! I mean, how do you left nuts blame THAT on Reagan, Bush or even George Wallace????

#151 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-07-22 04:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

You really don't understand how the this whole 'forum' thing works...do you?

My question wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the person who claimed that ZERO PERCENT of gun owners have gone on bloody rampages. I happen to mention the most recent rampage and you go off on some tangent about stalin....trying to turn it into some partisan issue all while ignoring the obvious fact right under your nose........and the fact that nobody was talking to you to begin with.

What do 'bomb murders' have to do with shooting rampages?

I'm so happy to hear that the surge in gun prices right after the election is quickly waning and people who thought they were buying an 'investment' are already losing money on their purchase.

Good stuff.

I'm so happy to hear that the surge in gun prices right after the election is quickly waning and people who thought they were buying an 'investment' are already losing money on their purchase.

Good stuff.

#243 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

Why does that make you happy?

Were you offended that so many people were frieghtened enough to go out and buy a gun?

Sometimes I just don't understand the way the left thinks. It's a good think you fuckers weren't around when the Constitution was being written.

I'm so happy to hear that the surge in gun prices right after the election is quickly waning and people who thought they were buying an 'investment' are already losing money on their purchase.

Good stuff.

#243 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-07-22 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Wants a bankrupt America

I never can figure out people who wish financial disaster on others. CS, Moneywar who has several times wished retirement portfolio failures on people, jackass, etc.

And it's all lefties. I've never once seen a rightie wish financial disaster on others. What is it with this "compassionate" left? Why do they want others to fail so badly?

Goat notices, "And it's all lefties."

The effort is to move the "Comments" page well past any rational explanations by a rightwinger, Republican or conservative. You can see it happen, as your post is delayed, while any number of leftwing spam is placed between the top of the scroll and that/those posts.

The same with the seperate thread. If anyone manages to make a point, against the typical leftwing repeat of asked and answered propaganda, then the Corkys, AIs, Boyds, Bobbys of this site spam to seperate the audience from any rightwing, etc., reason, logic or fact.

You've been here long enough that you've seen these same arguments, already contradicted, being repeated by the party parrots on this site and using the same, studied lies proven false and misleading!

Ironically, some conservative posters can find agreement with the spam, illogical lies and efforts to revile other politicians, not members of their collective. Go figure ...

"I've never once seen a rightie wish financial disaster on others."

You are a disingenuous, lying piece of shit.

But everyone already knows that.

No, you are mistaken. Because you have removed this from context. Nothing exists outside of context, so you are inherently wrong. And English language structure 101 says you are wrong in your interpretation of the sentence.

#238 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-07-22 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

"A well regulated cadre of plumbers being necessary for a sanitary state, the rights of the people to keep and use toilets shall not be infringed."

Somehow in your world, that sentence means only those people who are licensed plumbers are allowed to own toilets.

The way the 2nd amendment is worded is no different:

"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."

That comma shows the two thoughts are seperate. The first part indicates what the founding fathers felt about a well regulated militia, and the second part indicates how they plan to make sure that the militia remains vibrant.

They did NOT say "the right of the people int he militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In your view this is what they meant.... but if they meant it to be that specific it would have been VERY easy for them to do so. They didn't. They said the right of THE PEOPLE... that means everybody.

I didn't have to infer anything, put on a swami hat, or divine it. The framers of the Constitution wrote it very plainly for everyone to read.

ANd yet somehow you are confused.

You are a disingenuous, lying piece of shit.

If you think I'm wrong -- prove it.

Link or stink, o angry dude.

I seem to recall Rush hoping for failure.

I would like to see open carry just about everywhere. What's the point in being required to conceal?

Cops openly carry their weapon. Cops have more rights than me? Fuck that noise.

"A well regulated cadre of plumbers being necessary for a sanitary state, the rights of the people to keep and use toilets shall not be infringed."

Somehow in your world, that sentence means only those people who are licensed plumbers are allowed to own toilets.

#249 | Posted by TGNH at 2009-07-22 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag

Somehow in your world, you think you are making sense.

A cadre of plumbers is not necessary for a sanitary state. Your logic is false. A well regulated militia IS necessary for the protection of a free State. You can't equate a non esssential with an essential and think you are making a fair comparison.

The second amendment was never meant to give unlimited arms to the populace, which is what you would like it to say. The second amendment gives unrestricted arms to the National Guard---which was then known as the State Militia.

READ 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.

The activist judges on the USSC have changed the meaning--not the wording of the second amendment.

A well regulated militia---USSC---ignore that part.

being necessary to a free State--USSC--ehhh we don't need that part either.

the right of the people---USSC--Let's change that to INDIVIDUALS---much shorter, and I'm sure that's what the founders REALLY meant.

To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed---USSC---well wait a minute---let's change this part to--shall be infringed as government sees fit.

So now the NEW second amendment MEANS:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

BUT---the words haven't changed a bit. The WORDS are still:

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.

Neat trick, huh.

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.

Neat trick, huh.
#254 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-22 09:37 PM |

I seem to recall Rush hoping for failure.

www.washingtonmonthly.com

That's nice, bOoB. As I said, I've never seen a rightie wish financial disaster on another individual. Feel free to try again.

CrispeeOC

There were many meanings of the word militia. But in the context of the second amendment it was not about individuals. I doubt the founders thought that every individual in the State should be well regulated---kind of defeats the idea of freedom doesn't it. You have to use all the words in a sentence to find out what the sentence means---that's what I did in post #254. I also doubt the founders wanted every individual to have access to all arms as the second says---however when talking about the State Militia, it makes perfect sense.

When the second amendment was written, All men had the right to bear arms---putting such an obvious GIVEN into the Constitution would have been foolish---why bother---why not put in that all men had the right to ride a horse down the street? What the States were worried about was a too powerful central government---citizens could never stabd up to such an entity---only another army could defend---and that's what the secons amendment did---allow another army that could fight the central government if possible, and keep protect the State and its citizens from the central government.

But let's see you use every word like I did in #254 and see if it makes sense.

CrispeeOC

Do you agree with my statement that the second amendment means:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

I see no other meaning to the courts ruling---do you?

Cops openly carry their weapon. Cops have more rights than me? Fuck that noise.

#253 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-07-22 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag

What is the advantage to open carry? The bad guy can see you have a gun, and if he wants it, all he has to do is pull his gun and take yours. It seems to me all open carry would do would be to allow the bad guys to carry around their weapons easier. But then--I don't know your point of view---how would open carry make you safer?

When the second amendment was written, All men had the right to bear arms---putting such an obvious GIVEN into the Constitution would have been foolish---why bother---why not put in that all men had the right to ride a horse down the street? What the States were worried about was a too powerful central government---citizens could never stabd up to such an entity---only another army could defend---and that's what the secons amendment did---allow another army that could fight the central government if possible, and keep protect the State and its citizens from the central government.
#257 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-22 10:18 PM

I think I will stick with this interpretation as opposed to your opinion Bob.

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

In this Light:

"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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)

The bad guy can see you have a gun, and if he wants it, all he has to do is pull his gun and take yours.

So you concede concealed weapons are a better option?

CrispeeOC

Let's try again.

Do you agree with my statement that the second amendment means:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

I see no other meaning to the courts ruling---do you?

What do these words mean to you?

A well regulated militia--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

being necessary to a free State--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

the right of the people>--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Bob, it is very simple, the first part provides the reason for the second part.

A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state,

An indication of how the founding fathers felt about militia's and gave the reason for the second half of the sentence:

the right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

That doesn't mean just people in the militia, it doesn't mean only those who the government feels like it. It doesn't mean only whites, or blacks, or hispanics, or indians, or women.... THE PEOPLE.

PERIOD.

So what is your point about the USSC bob? other than to obfuscate the issue in hope that your I hate guns mentality can somehow worm it's way into the rest of society?

What I really love Bob, is that you think the Founding Fathers are complete morons and just forgot to add in

The right of the people IN THE MILITIA shall not be infringed.

You really think they are that stupid? Really?

They chose those words for a specific reason and all it says is "the right of the people" no qualifiers...

"They chose those words for a specific reason and all it says is "the right of the people" no qualifiers..."

I don't think Bob bothered to read the post. He seems to be stuck on what a Courts opinion is, as opposed to what the true meaning was when written.

Were you offended that so many people were frieghtened enough to go out and buy a gun?

Sometimes I just don't understand the way the left thinks. It's a good think you fuckers weren't around when the Constitution was being written.

#244 | Posted by Eddie at 2009-07-22 06:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wasn't offended in the least....simply amused.

#243 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-07-22 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Wants a bankrupt America

#245 | Posted by goatman at 2009-07-22 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, rednecks buying 'investment' firearms is what will do it too. Sure.

I never can figure out people who wish financial disaster on others. CS, Moneywar who has several times wished retirement portfolio failures on people, jackass, etc.

And it's all lefties. I've never once seen a rightie wish financial disaster on others. What is it with this "compassionate" left? Why do they want others to fail so badly?

#246 | Posted by goatman at 2009-07-22 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Please show me where I wished 'Portfolio Failure' on any of you hillbillies. I simply hope your gun loses value. Nothing more. If that alone is 'portfolio failure' in your eyes, perhaps you better cancel you internet service and begin saving.

CommonSense is one of those retards that supports strict gun controls, high taxes on ammo, bans of every gun that doesn't have a 30 inch barrel and isn't muzzle loaded, and then tells everyone that no one is after their gun.

#49 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-07-21 03:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well now, you see, that's where you're wrong. I own several firearms and I've never been worried about uncle Sam "coming to get em". I even have no issue with any kind of permitting the Govt would require. I'm not sure why the NRA is so against that.

I own a handgun (HK UPS .45)...A gift from my father upon entering the Navy.....yup in Massachusetts of all places....crazy huh!?!?!

I also own a Mossberg 500 (18.5 inch barrel....shortest legal barrel here in MA) and pistol grip. She's a beauty for home protection. The racking sound alone would be enough to make most people retreat.

I also have my grandfather's Marlin .22 rimfire rifle that was handed down to me.

So.........you were saying??

CrispeeOC

You werte asked civil questions in post #262---can you respond or not?

TGNH

Can you respond to the questions asked in post #262 or not?

Please show me where I wished 'Portfolio Failure' on any of you hillbillies.

???

As far as I know, you never have. That's why when I made that statement I preceded it with "moneywar" who has indeed wished such things.

TGNH

Can you respond to the questions asked in post #262 or not?

#271 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-23 12:12 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yes bob. By all means ignore the post right under it, #263, where I did specifically answer your idiotic question.

The words written in the first part of the sentence provided their reason for the second part.

They believed in a well regulated militia. One that was populated by ordinary citizens who owned guns.

They obviously did not mean that only those who happened to serve in the militia could own guns or they would have said exactly that. They gave the right to ALL Americans knowing that many would serve in the militia.

Now, how about you trying to respond to a post? Can you tell me why you think the founding fathers were far to stupid to write "the right of the people IN THE MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" if that is what they meant?

It is so obvious they wanted every American to have the right to keep and bear arms, and yet your blind hatred of guns makes you try and infer what they thought as they wrote it down.

It is a very simple exercise. Read exactly what they wrote.....not what you think they meant to say, or hope that they wanted to say... read what they wrote and made law.

If you do that with a clear mind instead of this irrational fear of an armed populace, you will see they meant for everyone to enjoy the right to keep ad bear arms.

TGNH

You did NOT answer the questions.

The questions were simple. If you can't answer just say so. Your post in no way answers ANY of the questions asked. You simply lied as anyone can see. Let's try again.

Do you agree with my statement that the second amendment means:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

I see no other meaning to the courts ruling---do you?

This is pretty much a yes or no answer---can you handle it?

NEXT

What do these words mean to you?

A well regulated militia--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Your answer goes here. Ever been in school and they hand out a test? Same thing---your answer goes after the question.

being necessary to a free State--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Again--you answer goes here.

the right of the people--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Again---get the picture yet? Your answer goes here.

To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Almost home--one more time---your answer goes here.

BBob,

You ask good questions.

From a historical perspective I will do my best to answer them:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit...A well regulated militia...being necessary to a free State...the right of the people...To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

Unfortunately, as is true with much of the Constitution, our founders' didn't anticipate the degree to which future generations would scrutinize the text and thus draw different conclusions. They were pretty prescient in recognizing that times change and allowed for an Ammendment process - actually, that is worthy of hooting and hollering; unbelievably prescient.

But, back to the point at hand...

The founders were in favor of gun-ownership. They cited a broad scope of justifications; protection from government tyranny being one of them. Having said that, they lived in different times. They were revolutionaries. They overthrew an existing government and created their own. Their model was based upon very limited government and a staunch adherence to individualism (with all of the pitfalls inherent in such a system).

All of this lines up perfectly with my understanding of our lax laws regarding gun ownership.

Where I run into a bit of trouble is that little clause regarding "a well-regulated militia".

I don't know how that clause applies to a modern context.

Given that, I appreciate your position on this. However, in a broader sense, I don't for a moment believe that our founders legislated, by any remote stretch, a populace that is unarmed.

Personally, I think our current restrictions are probably pretty close to what our founders envisioned - Freedom to possess firearms as long as certain conditions are met.

BBob,

I am about to depart blog-world for a long weekend away.

If you offer a response, I won't be in a position to address it until next week; at the earliest.

FYI

Have a good time on your long weekend, Jeff

Thanks, Goat.

Jeff J

I am in favor of gun ownership. Of course the founders were in favor of gun ownership for everyone---but as I have stated many times before, such a right was a GIVEN. Every man in the colonies could always carry a gun if they wanted to. As I said many times before, to put such a right in the Constitution would have seemed foolish to them since it was already such an obvious right that it need not be mentioned. What the second amendment did was allow the citizens to form a well regulated militia to protect the citizens of a State from a strong central government. They knew individuals could never stand up against the central government if it turned evil. Only an opposing army could protect the citizens----and that's why the second amendment was written. It means exactly what it says. A National Guard is necesasary to protect the State and its citizens and the National guard should not have any restrictions on weapons.

You only seem to have trouble with the phrase well regulated---how does the State figure into your view of the 2nd? How does the phrase "shall not be infringed" fit into your view of the 2nd? I see infringements all over the place---you only have a problem with one phrase? It only makes sense when talking about forming a State Militia.

Freedom to possess firearms as long as certain conditions are met.

#275 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-07-23 07:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

They said---Shall not be infringed. Where do you see conditions set up in there anyplace?

Jeff J---and if you elect to answer the questions---type them out and answer as they were given.

#279 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Damn, I think I actually agree with bob!

The only argument I have is that all of the other right listed in the Bill of Rights are specifically for individuals not the rights of the states.

The second amendments protects individuals from the central government by allowing them to form a well regulated militia capable of resisting the central governments army. No other country on Earth had ever allowed such a protection for its citizens. It is a protection for individual freedom.

Your pedantic lying about me not answering the question not withstanding, you and I are arguing for the same thing from two different perspectives?

The founding Fathers gave the right to ALL citizens the freedom to keep and bear arms, and allowed them to form militia's?

You can't pull apart "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state,"

You see that comma at the end? That whole line is one thought. I provided the answer to your question as a grouping. You wrongly try to seperate them.

The answer is, the founding fathers believed well regulated militias were an integral part of the nation. That is the meaning of the first part. The meaning of the second SET of words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." made sure that every citizen could do just that. Keep and bear arms and serve in a militia. It did not mandate service in a militia, it just allows that you can arm yourself.... and if you feel like joining they opened a path for you to do so.

I have NO idea why you are trying to interject court opinion or asking me how I feel about "the government can infinge on those rights as they see fit." Quit trying to obfuscate the issue.

TGNH

Are you just nuts or what? The questions are simple---why are you having such a problem. Geez--the first one is a yes or no answer. Let's just see if you can answer that one for now. One more time.

Do you agree with my statement that the second amendment means:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

I see no other meaning to the courts ruling---do you?

This is pretty much a yes or no answer---can you handle it?

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

I see no other meaning to the courts ruling---do you?

This is pretty much a yes or no answer---can you handle it?

#285 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-23 10:28 AM

Why are you stuck on this court ruling? When you have the facts in front of you regarding the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

"I've never once seen a rightie wish financial disaster on others."

You are a disingenuous, lying piece of shit.

But everyone already knows that.

#248 | Posted by Angrydad

no, you are probably seeing shit because you are sitting in shit. You are probably in a bad neighborhood, in a house falling apart... You are working as a manager of 7-11 because your job was outsourced. You are pissed off and you blaim everyone else but yourself.

YOU! Angydad, made the choice not to re-educate yourself and make yourself more valuable in this changing world.

Do you agree with my statement that the second amendment means:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

#285 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Nope.

This is exactly opposite of the meaning.

Are you joking?

Why are you stuck on this court ruling? When you have the facts in front of you regarding the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

#286 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-07-23 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag

UMMMM the courts ruling decides our rights. Why didn't you answer the question since you copied and pasted it?

Nope.

This is exactly opposite of the meaning.

Are you joking?

#288 | Posted by Eddie at 2009-07-23 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag

Not at all. Are you saying individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms? Make a point.

TGNH

Are you just nuts or what? The questions are simple---why are you having such a problem. Geez--the first one is a yes or no answer. Let's just see if you can answer that one for now. One more time.

Do you agree with my statement that the second amendment means:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as government sees fit.

I see no other meaning to the courts ruling---do you?

This is pretty much a yes or no answer---can you handle it?

#285 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-23 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Bob. This is what having a discussion with you around is like:

Me: Hmmm. I believe that apple is red.

Others: Well the apple is more of a purple.

Buffalo Bob: BANANAS ARE YELLOW!

Me: Bob, we are talking about apples right now.

Buffalo Bob: YOU LIE! I asked you a question can't you answer it? Bananas! Are they or are they not YELLOW! I betcha can't even answer that huh?! Can ya? huh? huh?

It is ridiculous. You are bringing in court opinion into a discussion about OUR opinions on the 2nd amendment. I know how the court feels. I believe what I have written...What the court believes has no bearing on the discussion.

UMMMM the courts ruling decides our rights. Why didn't you answer the question since you copied and pasted it?

#289 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-23 11:58 AM

Because it had nothing to do with my posts or point. You continue to flaunt the Courts OPINION and everyone else flaunts the intentions and meaning when it was written.

CrispeeOC

It makes no difference what the original intentions were. The activist judges on the court is the only factor as far as our rights go. As I stated in post #262---they changed the entire meaning of the 2nd.

If you go by the original words. I went over them word by word in post #262. How about YOU DOING THE SAME.

Others have tried and failed. Use the words like I did. Tell me what they mean to you.

TGNH

You simply ignore post #262. It deals with the words that were used. Why don't you do the same as I did?

No Bob. You took the first half of the sentence and split it, and then asked me what each quarter of the sentence means.

I will answer your question for a THIRD time:

"A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state,"

This means exactly what it says. The founding fathers though that a militia was important to the safety and security of the country. Not really a lot to interpret there. The "purpose" of these words is exactly as they read. A declarative statement on their view of militia's.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Again, this means exactly what it says. All people can keep and bear arms. The two ideas are linked, because the foundign fathers wanted all persons to be involved in the defense of the nation when the time comes...... by serving in a militia. It did not MANDATE they serve in militias, but it allows for militias to be formed, and gauruntees the right of all people to keep and bear arms so that IF THEY SO CHOOSE they can join them when needed.

So there bob. ALL have the right to keep and bear arms. And there can be militias where people owning guns can join.

I am waiting for the inevitable BANANAS ARE YELLOW! from you.

In the context of the times, was not a militia technically "any man with a gun go home and get em?"

In the context of the times, was not a militia technically "any man with a gun go home and get em?"

#296 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-07-23 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Exactly the point Kanrei. That is why the founding fathers made sure EVERY SINGLE breathing body in the US had the right to keep and bear arms. They could not have made it any more plain. They were smart enough to not try and make serving in the militia mandatory.... but the option was open, and everyone could have the means to be an effective warrior (i.e. a gun) if they decided to join.

Buffalo bob abd his BANANAS ARE YELLOW! defelctions and obfuscations are nothing but pure lunacy.

TNGH

You are simply mistaken. Your grasp of the English written word is poor at best. In English---only one subject makes a sentence---not two. You are trying to get two concepts out of one sentence--you are wrong. The sentence is about one subject--protecting the State with a well regulated militia.

And you DIDN't answer the questions. You simply LIE.

Let's try again---I am amused by your twisting and lyihng---let's see you do some more. Ane in addition---a militia was not "any man with a gun go home and get em." Ever. Prove your point about that.

What do these words mean to you?

A well regulated militia--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Your answer goes here. Ever been in school and they hand out a test? Same thing---your answer goes after the question.

being necessary to a free State--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Again--you answer goes here.

the right of the people--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Again---get the picture yet? Your answer goes here.

To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Almost home--one more time---your answer goes here.

There it is.

BANANAS ARE YELLOW!

Thank you Bob for not letting me down.

You interpret me providing my opinion is the prupose for the words they chose as not providing my opinion of the purpose behind the words they chose.

My favorite is where you accuse me of trying to find two different subjects in the sentence when you are trying to find FOUR. The first part is a declarative statement providing the reason for the second.

I would type it slower if it would help you understand, but you can't see past your own insanity.

Since you can actually type and operate a computer I am going to assume you are an echelon or two above the most unintelligent humans on the planet. But you are really, really trying to get down to the bottom aren't you?

Bob asks the same rhetorical questions, for the umpteenth time, "A well regulated militia--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?"

Ah, one I know: they wanted to not have a large standing army and specified that each state would have a well armed and well disciplined (trained) militia which could be called into emergency service, and integrated into the *small* standing army all agreed to. Since the states might not have the resources to provide armaments (except they were expected to provide state owned artillery and powder-and-ball), they would assure that each member of the militia (originally all state citizens 18-65, i believe) was armed and trained regularly. Of course, there was no restriction on a *large* standing navy as it provided protection for the Federal source(s) of revenue in great part!

"being necessary to a free State--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?"

Sheesh, even Leftist dunces understand that part! A war by some tyrant would win, removing our freedom, if there was no *large* standing army, and no militia! Are you playing stupid, Bob?

"the right of the people--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?"

No law, and no infringement can remove my right to lay about an attacker, in my self-defense, with a telescoping car antenna as my armament. Don't you agree that that is a natural right ... to arm oneself in defense?

"To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?"

What is says, the natural right to defense, survival and to fight for freedom can't be infringed by the Federal government ... another duh, Bob.

Bob has received this same general reply, over-and-over again, but still pretends to not know ... what a total idiot, and only worth replying to directly, on point.

TNGH

Let's see how your "answers" look next to the questions

A well regulated militia--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Your answer: This means exactly what it says. The founding fathers though that a militia was important to the safety and security of the country.

It says STATE. Do you think the founders were too dim to know the difference between a STATE and a COUNTRY? I guess the words WELL REGULATED were invisible to you.

being necessary to a free State--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Your answer: A militia is necessary to protect the country.

Actually it a well regulated militia that is necessary to protect a State.

the right of the people--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Your answer: The people have the right to keep and bear arms

Why did they have that right? It was to form a well regulated militia to protect the State. In English---all the words have to mesh together to form ONE thought---not two---unless there is a conjuction like "and". Two thoughts require Two sentences. This sentence has ONE thought---not two as you would like to think.

To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--What is the purpose of these words in the second amendment?

Your answer: The people have the right to keep and bear arms.

You seem to have ignored the words "shall not be infringed".

You ignored the words well-regulated, and shall not be infringed. You also disregarded any role the protection of the State might have to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

Let's look at the second amendment as YOU see it.

It is necessary to protect a Country,the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Maybe you should read the amendment again. You seem to have left out a few words.

This is a great read:

But the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is indeed a well-crafted sentence. By that I mean that its syntax permits only one reasonable interpretation of the authors' meaning, namely, that the people's individual right to be armed ought to be respected and that the resulting armed populace will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime.

Reading the Second Amendment

BTW, notice in the other thread about the Senate attempting to infringe the 2d Amendment for proof that the Democrat party consists of wannabe but petty tyrants, and forsworn in their oath to the US constitution.

Those decisions are forbidden to the Federal government, and left to the states to decide. Each state must allow or deny reciprocity in concealed carry ... not some anti-constitutional dictates from the forsworn Senators of the Fed ...

More from my #302 link

If the Framers meant to say that the States have a right to organize militias or that only people who are members of the militia have a right to guns, why would they say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? The Framers were intelligent men with a good grasp of the language. As we can see from the Tenth Amendment, they were capable of saying "States" when they meant States and "people" when they meant people

This is opening my eyes considering the other day's talk about the grammar of the amendment.

See? Bob will never answer, directly. As in this case, he merely quibbles over terms; e.g., in this case the term 'state' only has one meaning that he uses as an excuse to misdirect.

A 'free state' protected the 'state' of the union.

Otherwise, Bob just dismisses; e.g., in this case by mocking the 'right' by asking the same rhetorical question about it, again, like rote.

They picked the weakest possible construction by using the participle "being" instead of writing, say, "Since a well regulated militia is necessary. . . ." Their syntax keeps the militia idea from stealing the thunder of what is to come later in the sentence. Moreover, the weak form indicates that the need for a militia was offered not as a reason (or condition) for prohibiting infringement of the stated right but rather as the reason for enumerating the right in the Bill of Rights.

More from 302. This is a really interesting read for anyone on either side I think.

Kanrei says, "This is opening my eyes considering the other day's talk about the grammar of the amendment."

As mentioned, the effort to make the initial clause of the sentence into a 'conditional' one is oxymoronic to the presumptive and unconditional conclusion. Indeed, the idea that only the militia 'should' be allowed to bear arms is idiotic in that is an infringement and leaves half the populace, or more, unarmed in a nation 4/5 of which was wilderness, and the 1/4 of it still pretty dangerous and unpoliced.

The whole effort to discredit the 2d is the effort of fools, and so they subvert the right via more and more regulation; e.g., cop-killer-bullets that do no such thing, but rather extend the life of the firearm in which they are used!

Tad still reading me and responding even when I am not talking to or about him...Hmm, who is stalking whom?

From Dictionary.com:

state  /steɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [steyt] Show IPA ,noun, adjective, verb, stat⋅ed, stat⋅ing.
Use state in a Sentence
noun
7. a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.
8. the territory, or one of the territories, of a government.
9. (sometimes initial capital letter) any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America.
10. the body politic as organized for civil rule and government (distinguished from church ).
11. the operations or activities of a central civil government: affairs of state.
14. the States, Informal. the United States (usually used outside its borders): After a year's study in Spain, he returned to the States.

adjective 15. of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority.
16. made, maintained, or chartered by or under the authority of one of the commonwealths that make up a federal union: a state highway; a state bank.
17. characterized by, attended with, or involving ceremony: a state dinner.
18. used on or reserved for occasions of ceremony.

Yet Buffalo Bob thinks when they say free state they REALLY meant "State(s)" and not the country. The definition of the word would disagree with you.

But then you like yelling BANANAS ARE YELLOW!

They provided for a well regulated militia... and made sure the government could never take away the rights of ALL citizens to keep and bear arms. Was this to allow them to use said guns in the service of a militia? sure. But they never predicated the right on serving in the militia.

They only stated the government couldn;t take it away from all citizens.

You can;t win this Bob. You lost it about fifty posts ago, but yet you think if you continue to obfuscate the issue, you will win.

You won't.

I believe each Amendment builds on the one before it and the 1st is actually the least important. The weapons of the second guarantees the rights of the first. The protections of the 4th and 5th make sure they can't take your guns or you away in the middle of the night and goes all the way to number 10 that basically closes the door on federal powers.

Kanrei begs an answer, "Tad still reading me and responding even when I am not talking to or about him...Hmm, who is stalking whom?"

Where did I make my post about you, Kanrei? I don't restrict myself from tacit agreement by denying a response, on point.

Now, here you are with me as your subject, and pretending that I'm somehow denied the ability to agree, or discuss the issue raised?

No wonder I don't normally reply to your crapulously abundant one-line intellectual regurgitations. Thanks for the reminder(s), here today.

TGNH

I ahree. You are simply too stupid to understand a simple sentence. Your "answer" prove the point---Hell you even think the founders were too stupid to tell the difference between a State and a country.

The point still stands. The second amendment NOW means.

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as the government sees fit.

There is absolutely no other meaning to that sentence since the activist judges got through with it.

They killed the true meaning of the second amendment.

If you think the 2nd amendment means anything other than:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as the government sees fit.

Tell me what it is.

Tad again with me? I am almost tempted to actually read what he wrote. Lucky for me, he starts he posts so obviously, that it is easy to know it is him without having to lower my IQ with his words.

Ah, ha! Bob starts the crabwalk, "Tell me what it is."

Bob is saying that the 2d is no longer valid, because the courts have destroyed it with infringements, although they only meant the 'states'... ?

Bob is really disgusted that the 2d has been butchered in providing the right of the people by the 'states', but the Fed isn't the 'state', so the Fed can allow one of its branches (the courts) to infringe it, since it (the courts) isn't a 'state' ... you see?

Tadowe

The second amendment is very valid. It has just been changed from its original meaning by the Activist Judges on the USSC. The second amendment now means.

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as the government sees fit.

4 of the judges read the Constitution and gave the correct decision. Unfortunately there were 5 Activist Judges who made a new second amendment.

The Fed can infringe, not being a 'state', and enforces their infringements with the power that comes from the barrel of the Federal 'gun'.

So, kowtow to more 'regulation' restricting law abiding citizens, while more and more armed robbery is made successful by disarming the citizens of the best means of defense when the police are still not there ...

See? Bob was just working up to agreeing that the government is a hateful bitch that needs slapping, apparently.

Got it? This 180 allows Bob to be the winner, since he fooled everyone!

That's Bob for you ... who else can be far behind ...?

The Fed is the one who gave the right---the Fed is the one they were talking about not infringing. It was the Fed specifically that could not infringe. But the right is infringed daily. I guess the government doesn't think much of the second. The new ruling gave the States the right to regulate as they see fit.

However, the National Guard is not restricted to any armaments---even nukes. Gee--that makes sense.

The National Guard, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Naw---fuck the militia---and Fuck the State---and fuck shall not be infringed---we have our new second amendment.

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as the government sees fit.

William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century, at a time when there were no police or forces of law enforcement, about the right to have arms being a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[5]

Civilian usage meaning

The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.[17] Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms.[18] Particularly in the event of oppression or slaughter of people by governments or racial majorities, researchers have noted that exercise of the right to bear arms internationally is intrinsically linked to a people's ability to possess them

Bob sidles back toward the left, "The Fed is the one who gave the right ..."

The right to arm oneself is NATURAL. How come you can't get that through your head? The Fed can't 'give' a natural right, and the constitution DOES NOT say that, it obviously recognizes the natural right in the statement!

"... the Fed is the one they were talking about not infringing. It was the Fed specifically that could not infringe."

However, not being the 'state', the states could, according to Bob, because the SC changed the 2d, and the 'states' weren't restricted to not infringing, even before that, so ...

Bob pretends to be upset, but concludes pro government, "Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as the government sees fit."

The constitution specifically restricts the 'states' from restricting rights forbidden to the Fed to infringe, but you're too wrapped up in saving face, now ... like the other dingleberries ...

Go spout more nonsense, Bobby, I won't bother your effort to lie and misdirect anymore.

The point still stands and I have seen no one even attempt to dispute it.

We have a NEW second amendment. Same words, but different meaning. The NEW second amendment means:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as the government sees fit.

4 of the judges read the Constitution and gave the correct decision. Unfortunately there were 5 Activist Judges who made a new second amendment.

Although British Common Law was the basis of much of our US Constitution and Code of Law, it is not the determinant of the meaning of our constitution and law.

The states, of course, can regulate when and where arms may be carried openly, and since such displays in force, were discovered to intimadate freedom and democracy, specially the vote, and notwithstanding the everyday fear of citizens when weapons are displayed openly; even when it is the police.

However, concealed carry by law abiding citizens does NOT cause public fear, and should NOT be infringed, except normal and reasonable registration, and lack of felonious character, by law and not presumption.

However, the Democrat US Senate, and however many petty tyrants of the Right join the collective, ARE defying the consitution in assuming the 'right' to infringe the 2d by restricting concealed carry agreements between the states; denying the 'right' to do so should the states so choose, and under the color of fiat.

The constitution is toilet paper to the Leftist Democrats and neo-communists seeking to have the government 'buy' the private economy; dictating its conduct ... and attempting to protect itself against an armed citizenry who might revolt when force into 'state' socialism.

... traitors to the consitution, forsworn idiots of the Democrat party uber alles ...

The right has destoyed the second and fourth amendments, and the right to personal property---and they whine about lefties that want to stick to the Constitution. The second amendment was basically thrown out---they left the words--but none of their meaning or intention. The NEW second amendment means:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as the government sees fit.

That's history making.