Summations Only

You don't know what the fuck the founders wanted. They wanted an organized militia. They were talking about guns that could shoot one shot per minute. To think the founders ideas of weapons has any credence with todays technology and culture is fucking asinine. Shame on you. You take this tragedy as an opportunity to post wing nut talking points. Shame on you.You think more guns and more untrained, stupid wannabe rambo's is the answer?The stupidity is astounding.

You obviously haven't read the Constitution.

quote:

---

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.

---

And seem to be unable to understand the vast majority of the quotes you posted.You are a right wing freak that no amount of reality will intrude upon your fantasy world.Your revisionist view of history, unquestioning belief in radical interpretations of a iron age text and hate for other people, and the people like you will destroy this country.

Obviously history is not your strong suit. I was talking about your bible. Care to provide some cites to any interpretations by the courts that supports this?

It is exactly what they meant. They were not talking about freelance militias. The founders had a fear of anarchy. There are even writings by some of them that support this. The free militias you are talking about are the antithesis of what the founders meant by a well-regulated militia. Well regulated militia implies a militia set up by law. The free militias of the far right of today are not in any way regulated, so that simple fact destroys your argument.If we want to live by the actually meaning of the founders than the right to bear arms means single shot muzzleloaders. I am fine with people having free access to them.

Gish gallop

You provided no evidencePatrick Henry was not part of writing the constitution.
The George Mason quote does nothing to support your assertions. In actuality his writings are counter to your arguments.Samuel Adams was not part of the writing of the Constitution. His comments here do not support your assertions.Your Alexander Hamilton Quote is actually a combination of two quotes from different Federalist Papers. Also these quotes do not support your assertion.As for Mr Vandercroy what does anything he have to say mean anything. What makes him an authority?You have provided no evidence to support your assertions.

Tell me why he is an authority.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

You obviously have no concept of why there was the bill of rights.Ypur argument makes no sense. This is a reaffirming that there is a right to bear arms in conjunction with the militia mentioned in the Constitution.The founders had a fear of armed rabble. They were the elites in a period of revolution. The well regulated militia was a means to allow citizenry arms bu to keep them organized and well regulated.Maybe you need to understand what the word regulated means.
This was a legal document so words in it have a legalistic meaning. Do you actually thing well-regulated means outside of government control? That is the anithesis of what the term well regulated means. Well regulated means following regulations. Regulations are laws.What do you think would qualify today as a well regulated militia? Did you not just say this? Yet you think an armed populace can defeat a modern army?
Your arguments are schizophrenic at best. It is an argument of the absurd. I am stunned that you believe it is a real argument. The basis is people like Faith making claims that we must stick with founders original intent. Unless of course that argument works against you then they throw it out.Oh how is it not historically accurate?

Then why should I give a flying fuck about anything he writes? How do you know it is accurate?This a fallacious argument.The paper shows his interpretations of the evidence. It is an interpretation. There are many legal scholars and historians that come to different conclusions.

Source for these state armies please.According to the National Guard itself they evolved from colonial and state militias. I know not of these state armies of which you speak.Was there an Ohio state army at one time? NY state army? Georgia? There is no such prohibition.

quote:

---

Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for political reasons.

---

Posse Comitatus ActBasically, if Congress or the President authorizes it it is not a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

We are speaking in the terms of an invasion. A civil war is a much different situation. But of course you will not acknowledge that. Also, the people fighting in these civil wars are not armed with handguns and semi auto rifles only. They are using heavy weapons and heavy machine guns. I was not clear by saying armed populace, what I should have said populace armed with civilian weapons.But then again this defeats your argument that an armed populace is necessary to prevent the tyranny of government.Syria and Tunisia have very strict gun laws. Libya had a total ban on private ownership. Seems they did pretty well considering gun restrictions. They had no need to have an already armed populace to overthrow the dictators. Building strawmen I see. How about arguing against my statements not what oyu want to argure against.Show where I have said there is no right. The point i am making is that there is an ability to heavily regulate them. It is right there in the Constitution.ABE There were 200 breechloading rifles used in the revolutionary war. It was the Ferguson rifle. Show they were known by the framers. Your cartridge comment is another strawman. Where did I say anything about there not being cartridges. Cartridges were quote common for muzzleloaders. Now how about showing a non-single shotEdited by Theodoric, : Time to deal with strawmenEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Maybe you have heard of the President of the United States. He can nationalize the National Guard.

But you are arguing against something I never said.That is a strawman. So I can dictate what many own positions are, you cannot.Oh yeah the pepperbox is a post revolutionary weapon.Again my claim of founders only allowing single shot muzzle loaders is an absurdity, to show that they were unable to conceive of the weapons around today. It is not ridiculous to think they may have rethought this amendment if they knew we would someday ahve bushmasters and glocks. But in this case it has not been allowed to grow and expand.

The thing I find fascinating about this discussion by the American people at large is the lack of out cry when other constitutional rights were removed.1st Amendment
We now have first amendment zones in this country4th Amendment
Slowly been chipped away for years, but the Patriot Act completely eviscerated this amendment. All that needs to be made is a claim of national Security and law enforcement has very few limits on searches.
National Security Letters
Current laws do not adhere to the 4th amendment.But when it comes to guns, people scream to high heaven that their Constitutional Rights are being oppressed.The way to stop the tyranny of government is not through guns, but through demanding our 1st and 4th amendment rights.

You seemingly know nothing about guns. A semi auto will not get off a first shot any quicker than a revolver or a single shot. All the semi auto will give you is more shots before reloading. "powder horn? Aren't you tired of strawmen yet?This whole self defense thing is just a deflection. How often do we hear about mindless slaughter as opposed to someone actually using a gun in self defense? Self defense with a gun is not like in the movies, There are rarely multiple rounds going back and forth. Like hunting if you are not sure of your target and not confident a shot will hit, do not take the shot. Mr Semantics strikes again. Lets make an accurate statement. it can be used as a hunting rifle. Its original design was not as a hunting rifle.
As an avid hunter, I find people that bring 20-30 round clips hunting offensive and disgusting. You can only shoot 1-2 deer and how many prairie dogs do you really need to shoot at one time? If you can't drop a deer with one shot you shouldn't take the shot.Rifles like this are terrible hunting rifles. They are not designed to be MOA accurate. They are designed tho throw as much lead as quick as possible. If you read the reviews by people that shoot them they think hitting a 12" target at 300 yards is good accuracy. I good hunting rifle should be accurate within 6" at 300 yards.