Lawmaker wants military patrols after child's murder

[beevul]

90. When I read the post, I didn't see much of anything worth responding to, but just for you...

"The fact that the militia clause is "subordinate" doesn't mean you get to just ignore it. The question is how should RKBA be interpreted, and the militia clause gives a clear indication, to those like yourself who are ignorant of the historical facts, that RKBA refers to military and not civilian gun ownership."

Would it be "ignorant of historical fact" for me to point out that when amendment 2 was passed, we had a civilian military, and people who volunteered were to bring their own weapons?

No the question ISN'T "how should rkba be interpreted". That war is over. YOU lost. Get over it.


"You see, outside of the NRA kindergarden, people understand that all of the constitution must be interpreted. For example, it is pretty well agreed upon that commercial speech is less protected than political speech. But, but, but, HOW can this BE!?!?!?! Da constatooshun doesn't actually say anything about commercial speech!!!"

Cute. Everyone make note how civil these anti-gun types are.

"The reason, of course, is that commercial speech is less of a fundamental civil rights issue than political speech. In order to have a functioning democracy and a free society, it is necessary for people to be able to freely express political opinions, even in a potentially controversial or misleading ways, but it is not necessary to allow for the same leeway as to how companies market their products."

Blah blah blah.

"As for 2A, the fact that RKBA refers to military and not civilian gun ownership is much clearer than these first amendment issues. First, it is pretty obvious that carrying around a gun for self defense has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights or maintaining a function democracy. It's an issue of personal safety, but -- obviously -- if safety is the objective, then having gun laws so permissive that there is a net increase in violence and death (like we have in the US) is completely self-defeating. As they say, the bill of rights is not a suicide pact."

You state it as a fact, represent it as a fact, but you show no empirical evidence.

"As if that weren't enough, for any ignoramuses that can't figure this out on their own that 2A does not in fact require that we endure tens of thousands of needless deaths every year to preserve "gun rights", the framers actually inserted clear guidelines into the text itself, in the form of the militia clause. I guess they couldn't forsee that a brainless cult called the NRA would one day cause large numbers of people to simply ignore all this and draw the perverse conclusions necessary to satisfy their gun obsession."

Once again, stating your opinion, as if it were fact.

I got news for you bub. The only fact that matters at this very moment, is that amendment 2 protecting an individual right, is SETTLED LAW. President Obama says it protects an individual right, and I dare say hes more of a constitutional scholar than you are. But I'm willing to listen to any qualifications you may wish to put forth showing he isn't. Furthermore, the american people AGREE with that interpretation - by over 70 percent (I'll dig the poll up if you really want to see it). How sad for you, eh?

But let me guess - the President is wrong, and the American people are wrong, and you are right.

Like I said, Youre fighting a war you already lost. You just haven't come to accept it as such.

Keep on banging the collective rights drum, and pretending that doing so matters, the rest of us will move right right along, castle doctrines, shall issue CCW in Illinois and California probably sooner than later, Nationwide CCW reciprocity within probably ten years, and who knows what else.


And you know what the kicker is? People with attitudes like yours, toward guns and the people that own them, will be largely responsible for it.

Look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

Yup.