Jon Meacham, a gun owner, on restoring the assault weapons ban

[slim 1,530]

If we have to take away your guns to get you to go for a check up then that is exactly what we'll do!

Peace Corps vs. Marine Corps again?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Maybe you constitutional scholars can tell me which part of the constitution justifies a national health care system?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Maybe you constitutional scholars can tell me which part of the constitution justifies a national health care system?

Why would anyone bother slim? You are one of those who seem to mistakenly think that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the people to keep the government in check.

[slim 1,530]

promote the general Welfare,

That's the one my congressman used as well.

Funny how he (and you) could get a tax-payer-funded national public healthcare system out of that one little clause..... yet can't seem to grasp the meaning of the very simply written - and very specific - 2nd Amendment.

ETA - add Rob to that list as well.

Edited January 22, 2011 by slim

[The_Dude 1,142]

That's the one my congressman used as well.

Funny how he (and you) could get a tax-payer-funded national public healthcare system out of that one little clause..... yet can't seem to grasp the meaning of the very simply written - and very specific - 2nd Amendment.

ETA - add Rob to that list as well.

Slim, here is the 2nd amendment, where does it say that this it's purpose is for the people to hold arms as a means of tempering government tyranny?

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.

Now, the Heller decision essentially crops off the red part, but none the less, it never meant, and in light of the Heller decision still DOES NOT mean that it was or is meant as a check of the governments power.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

And then again here:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

[slim 1,530]

Slim, here is the 2nd amendment, where does it say that this it's purpose is for the people to hold arms as a means of tempering government tyranny?

Is "a free state" one with a tyrannical government?

Now, the Heller decision essentially crops off the red part,

How so?

but none the less, it never meant, and in light of the Heller decision still DOES NOT mean that it was or is meant as a check of the governments power.

So you're saying those dudes that overthrew their own government and then made sure posterity would always be armed did so in order for folks to have an individual right to protect their home from burglars and/or to hunt ducks?

again

general Welfare

Again, a two word "all-encompassing" clause that somehow begets thousand page legislation yet a simple Amendment can't be understood.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Is "a free state" one with a tyrannical government?

How so?

So you're saying those dudes that overthrew their own government and then made sure posterity would always be armed did so in order for folks to have an individual right to protect their home from burglars and/or to hunt ducks?

Again, a two word "all-encompassing" clause that somehow begets thousand page legislation yet a simple Amendment can't be understood.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

If you could just get past your clear misunderstanding of the spirit and context of the amendment when it was written and move on to a post-Heller mindset, then we'll have something to talk about.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

So you're saying those dudes that overthrew their own government and then made sure posterity would always be armed did so in order for folks to have an individual right to protect their home from burglars and/or to hunt ducks?

Actually, they were referring to State militias when the 2nd was written.

And even Heller and McDonald don't refer to gun ownership as being for defense against tyranny. They refer to the right to own a weapon for "self-defense". They don't call out the Gubmint as the boogey-man.

Again, a two word "all-encompassing" clause that somehow begets thousand page legislation yet a simple Amendment can't be understood.

Just think of it as the "getting business done" clause the Framers stuck in there accidentally on purpose.

Most of them were lawyers, you know.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Rebecca Jo

[slim 1,530]

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Eventually you're going to have to prove it to everyone else.

If you could just get past your clear misunderstanding of the spirit and context of the amendment when it was written and move on to a post-Heller mindset, then we'll have something to talk about.

So you're saying they're different?

That the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has changed?

And what exactly is a "post-Heller mindset" anyway?

Actually, they were referring to State militias when the 2nd was written.

Really?

How were they armed? WHO were they armed by? And who they were comprised of?

And even Heller and McDonald don't refer to gun ownership as being for defense against tyranny. They refer to the right to own a weapon for "self-defense". They don't call out the Gubmint as the boogey-man.

They don't have to. It's quite simply worded in the 2A.

I was literally just asked this in a post above. "A free state" is pretty simple, right? Oh, I forgot. I was talking to folks who still have a queen. Sorry.

Just think of it as the "getting business done"

So I can think of it as that yet you can't think of the simply-worded 2A as "to ward off tyranny?"

[The_Dude 1,142]

Eventually you're going to have to prove it to everyone else.

So you're saying they're different?

That the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has changed?

And what exactly is a "post-Heller mindset" anyway?

Really?

How were they armed? WHO were they armed by? And who they were comprised of?

They don't have to. It's quite simply worded in the 2A.

I was literally just asked this in a post above. "A free state" is pretty simple, right? Oh, I forgot. I was talking to folks who still have a queen. Sorry.

So I can think of it as that yet you can't think of the simply-worded 2A as "to ward off tyranny?"

Read the Heller decision slim, specifically what the majority summary. It essentially eliminates the first part of the 2nd amendment, the part that states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and leave the second half untouched.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

slim, historically the militias were regulated by States. The States could call up the men, but they could also limit their right to own arms. The 2nd took that ability away from the States.

Now I'm going to bed. If you really want to learn more about how your precious 2nd Amendment came to be, I suggest you do a little reading and knock it off with the two-bit comedy routine where you chase your tail around the forums. It's really getting old and it doesn't make you look very bright.

[slim 1,530]

Read the Heller decision slim, specifically what the majority summary. It essentially eliminates the first part of the 2nd amendment, the part that states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and leave the second half untouched.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed.

historically the militias were regulated by States.

Do you mean, "the states passed the laws that controlled them" or do you mean, "the states levied for their arms, equipment, pay, training, etc.?"

I think you better figure out what well regulated means. It's not about regulations.

The States could call up the men, but they could also limit their right to own arms. The 2nd took that ability away from the States.

Was that in their regulations?

Now I'm going to bed. If you really want to learn more about how your precious 2nd Amendment came to be, I suggest you do a little reading

Suggested reading list?

and knock it off with the two-bit comedy routine where you chase your tail around the forums. It's really getting old and it doesn't make you look very bright.

Looks like you've been doing a little reading of your own. Reading Rob & Mel's posts, that is!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Slim you do seem quite confused by what precisely were "well regulated militia" and a bit enamored with a false sense of politicians who don't share your views being fairly characterized as 'tyrannical.'