obama not after your guns ?

Bentleyspop

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.

Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.

yeah no, you are wrong on that one.

Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.

I used to blame Obama for all things bad that have ever happened but now Ill blame Gutenberg

Thirty Bills Unpaid

The founding fathers did the best they could with what they knew. It was incumbent upon future generations to do the best they could with what they knew... and this is where leadership has failed the country.

I still, for the life of me, cannot understand a sensible person arguing against measures of gun reforms implemented with the safety of citizens in mind.

mickeyrat

I say follow the money. who owns stock in the publically traded weapons companies? not to mention the campaign contributions and the fear of getting this bullshit grade from lobbyists.

mcgruff10

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.

Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.

yeah no, you are wrong on that one.

Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.

but speech itself is still speech. I am free to say and be as critical as I deem fit against our government. Which is really what that right is about.

Right and I can hunt or shoot with a musket or an ar15. Hell I m gonna go to the range tomorrow and not shoot my ar15, but shoot my m1 garand born in 1942 in honor of all of you.

Smellyman

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.

Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.

yeah no, you are wrong on that one.

Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.

but speech itself is still speech. I am free to say and be as critical as I deem fit against our government. Which is really what that right is about.

Right and I can hunt or shoot with a musket or an ar15. Hell I m gonna go to the range tomorrow and not shoot my ar15, but shoot my m1 garand born in 1942 in honor of all of you.

Woot!

brianlux

Got a phone call from O. today. He said, "Hey man, I want your guns!" I said, "Barry, you know I don't have any and if I did, I wouldn't give them to you anyway, so kiss my ass." I laughed but he hung up on me.

Oh boy, now I've gone and done it!

gimmesometruth27

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

mickeyrat

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

Right with the definition of regulated as trained and well diciplined.

You know like say the states national guard.

After all you would be securing a free state.

mcgruff10

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

mickeyrat

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that.
For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.

mcgruff10

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that.
For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.

what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?

Last-12-Exit

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that.
For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.

what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?

It doesn't make it null and void. In order to nullify there must be an amendment. Heller vs DC is a ruling, not an amendment.

mcgruff10

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that.
For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.

what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?

It doesn't make it null and void. In order to nullify there must be an amendment. Heller vs DC is a ruling, not an amendment.

i'm fully aware that it is a ruling and not an amendment. I'm saying that the argument of having to have to be in a well regulated militia in order to own a gun is null and void thanks to this supreme court case.

mickeyrat

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that.
For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.

what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?

umm, a fully ratified constitutional amendment renders a previous amendment null and void. SCOTUS does not have that power. Only in interpreting what the amendments say and if they apply to a case before them.

Last-12-Exit

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that.
For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.

what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?

umm, a fully ratified constitutional amendment renders a previous amendment null and void. SCOTUS does not have that power. Only in interpreting what the amendments say and if they apply to a case before them.

I don't think he gets that part.

mickeyrat

I would like to get a hold of a dictionary of the time to better see what words meant then as oppsoed to how we intepret these same words now. even subltle shifts in definition change things dramatically.

mcgruff10

Last-12-Exit said:

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that.
For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.

what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?

umm, a fully ratified constitutional amendment renders a previous amendment null and void. SCOTUS does not have that power. Only in interpreting what the amendments say and if they apply to a case before them.

I don't think he gets that part.

Right I don't get it. I ve only taught the constitution for over 15 years. When I buy my next rifle I ll be sure to show my militia card.

Last-12-Exit

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

this is all well and good. but per amendment number 2, are you a part of a well regulated militia?

District of Columbia v Heller makes your point null and void.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

No, one recent SCOTUS decision expanded that right to include that.
For over 200 years that wasn't considered by decision to be true.

what's your point? dc v heller still makes the well regulated militia clause null and void. who cares if it is recent. are we arguing from a pre 2008 point of view or something?

umm, a fully ratified constitutional amendment renders a previous amendment null and void. SCOTUS does not have that power. Only in interpreting what the amendments say and if they apply to a case before them.

I don't think he gets that part.

Right I don't get it. I ve only taught the constitution for over 15 years. When I buy my next rifle I ll be sure to show my militia card.

I don't know what you teach, but saying "I've taught the constitution for 15 years" doesn't mean anything. DC vs heller does NOT make any part of the Constitution null and void. Continuing to post that it does makes it seem like you don't get it.

mcgruff10

someone asked me if i belonged to a militia suggesting that in order to have a right to bear arms you have to belong to some sort of militia. This is wrong. dc v heller says a well "regulated" militia is just well trained and disciplined. is null and void too technical of a word?
and yes i've taught the constitution for over 15 years: ap history down to 8th grade. i think i have a slight grasp on how the constitution works.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

someone asked me if i belonged to a militia suggesting that in order to have a right to bear arms you have to belong to some sort of militia. This is wrong. dc v heller says a well "regulated" militia is just well trained and disciplined. is null and void too technical of a word?
and yes i've taught the constitution for over 15 years: ap history down to 8th grade. i think i have a slight grasp on how the constitution works.

Just chiming in from the cheap seats...

The fact that somebody teaches something for 15 years does not necessarily mean they are an expert in that field. For example, there are historians that refute the Holocaust and scientists that discredit the Theory of Evolution.

Secondly... I would offer the term 'antiquated'. This term applies to the constitution. It needs revisionary work to account for the changes since it's creation and to address the needs of your country.

Do you deny the generally accepted idea that there is a gun problem in your country?