how can anyone know what the founders intended? and don't throw the federalist papers at me. I've heard it all before and read them in their entirety. simply three guys opining who are long deceased. the courts define the wording in the constitution, not a bunch of guys long dead and no two judges see the intent of the founders the same anyway. at any rate, it's all settled law which defines the state militias as the national guard and plenty of gun laws that the courts have not found unconstitutional. but I do agree that what is said here matters not.

I reject nothing. but there's no getting around a couple of facts. one, the people who designed this great experiment are no longer around and two, they wrote article three to establish the judiciary. call it legislating from the bench all you want but as you said yourself, saying it doesn't make it so. what is so is settled law.

There you go trying to change the subject and direction of the debate .... again. What is it with liberals? They simply can't discuss something when they have no knowledge or understanding of it so they try to reinvent the presmise to suit their twisted ideas and weak logic.

Last time knucklehead, and then we will move on. I only post this for anyone that is not familiar with "bogie man" and myself. I am not a conservative but will admit I tolerate them better than progressive liberals like "bogie man". I don't like Roberts, nor the Affordable Health Care Act and have never agreed with the commerce clause including it's origins in "selling yourself grain". I refuse to submit to becoming one of "sheeple" that liberals want us all to be.

Now back to the subject that it will probably be impossible to keep "bogie boy" attuned to:

As far as fundamental Constitutional rights are concerned even Congress can't change those in it's legislative vacuum. It takes a constitutional convention and ratification by the individual states and commonwealths. A look at any election map clearly indicates there are simply not enough blue ones to make a difference in favor of progressive liberal leaning states. The libs are pissing up a rope on this one.

I will resist and never comply with any executive order seeking to use political slight of hand (something liberals tirelessly attempt) or political trickery (never talk about the real issue, rebrand or redefine it into something meaningless that sounds good) to circumvent or redefine my right to keep and near arms as I choose.

Gun ownership is a right we have to not only protect ourselves from pesky varmits and for sporting purposes, it is to protect us from predators of all kinds, including a tyranical government deluded to thinking it is in charge and we the people are merely subject citizens who must pick up the tab.

I say this to Mr. Obama. "We are not your subjects. You are not our king. As a veteran I pledged my life to defend, protect and uphold the constitution and nothing has changed!".



Note to posters: Comments are welcome but please stay on subject. If you want to discuss something else you can always start your own thread.

of

Moving on. Definition of gun control: The proper selection of a firearm for a purpose, target identification, application of grip, target acquisition, sight alignment, trigger control, sear release, and repeat.

I'm magnumimous! Have .22 magnum, .357 magnum, .44 magnum and .454 Casull. They can have my magnums when they pry my cold dead hands from around them!

I do see your points sir. However, the second amendment was necessary for a time when we didn't have the military, national guard, state troopers, etc. that we have today, so it was critical for people to have their guns. The amendment is very out dated. That need is no longer a must. Government doesn't need to disarm us. They'd just roll over us. It's that simple. I refuse to believe that making everybody armed would somehow make us all safer, given America's stats is proof enough. I think if everyone was armed, there would in all likelihood be more violence. I don't recommend disarming people because like you said it's our right. However, I'm indifferent to the type of fire power thats on the streets, it just doesnt make sense to me. Just looking for solutions, there's not one single answer which is what people are looking for. To solve all the gun related killings, murders, robberies, etc. is going to take multiple steps. It's almost impossible to keep guns out the wrong hands. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I also agree that you may never know if the government has another agenda or stepping stone. I don't think it's likely but its possible and shouldn't be dismissed.

My buddy made a point, sense we have a right to bear arms with no limit then why not give people grenades, rocket launchers, nukes, etc. where does the limit set in? I don't know the answer, but he has a point. Regulation isn't always a bad thing. I will pay attention to this issue because I'm interested in where politicians are going with this. Democrats will walk their line and republicans will walk theirs. People have their own interpretation of the amendment and what it means which is why people argue about it. If it was so clear cut, there'd be no debate. I'm no historian or politician so just my opinion. Anyways, thanks for the point of view.

I do see your points sir. However, the second amendment was necessary for a time when we didn't have the military, national guard, state troopers, etc. that we have today, so it was critical for people to have their guns. The amendment is very out dated. That need is no longer a must. Government doesn't need to disarm us. They'd just roll over us. It's that simple. I refuse to believe that making everybody armed would somehow make us all safer, given America's stats is proof enough. I think if everyone was armed, there would in all likelihood be more violence. I don't recommend disarming people because like you said it's our right. However, I'm indifferent to the type of fire power thats on the streets, it just doesnt make sense to me. Just looking for solutions, there's not one single answer which is what people are looking for. To solve all the gun related killings, murders, robberies, etc. is going to take multiple steps. It's almost impossible to keep guns out the wrong hands. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I also agree that you may never know if the government has another agenda or stepping stone. I don't think it's likely but its possible and shouldn't be dismissed.

My buddy made a point, sense we have a right to bear arms with no limit then why not give people grenades, rocket launchers, nukes, etc. where does the limit set in? I don't know the answer, but he has a point. Regulation isn't always a bad thing. I will pay attention to this issue because I'm interested in where politicians are going with this. Democrats will walk their line and republicans will walk theirs. People have their own interpretation of the amendment and what it means which is why people argue about it. If it was so clear cut, there'd be no debate. I'm no historian or politician so just my opinion. Anyways, thanks for the point of view.

At the time of the second ammendment there were no killer drones, I-Phones, internet, cars, abortion clinics, birth control, TV, radio, computers, or anything else like that. Regardless the 1st and 2nd Ammendments still aplly to all of them as do all rights in the bill of rights. We don't modify the defintion of any of our rights becasue of new technology, nor is it necessary to abridge fundamental rights as a result of them. People's evolving "interpretations" of the meaning of these things is irrelevant.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/14/lets-set-the-record-straight-5-common-misconceptions-about-guns-mass-shootings/

•March 25, 2008, Sitka, Alaska: An 18 year killed 4 people with a 5-inch knife.
•June 8, 2001, Osaka, Japan: A school janitor killed 8 children with a kitchen knife.
•July 1, 2008, Shanghai, China: A man stabbed 6 police officers to death and wounded 4 others with a knife.

“According to the FBI’s website, during the time period between 2007 until 2011, there were 8,967 people that were murdered with knives or cutting instruments; during that same time period, there were 3,918 people that were murdered with either rifles or shotguns,” Hunter told TheBlaze.

And, of course, murderers aren’t restricted to just sharp objects and guns. Some have used explosives:
•April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Okla.: Timothy McVay murdered 168 people and injured 680 when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building using, among other components, fertilizer.
•May 18, 1927, Bath, Mich.: A man murdered 44 people, 38 of which were elementary school children. Another 58 were wounded when he blew up the Bath Consolidated School. To date, this is still the worst school massacre in US history.
•November 1, 1955: John “Jack” Gilbert Graham murdered 44 people by planting a dynamite bomb in his mother’s suitcase that was subsequently loaded aboard United Airlines Flight 629. The bomb detonated shortly after takeoff.

Others transportation:
•September 11, 2001: Nineteen terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people on American soil by intentionally flying passenger planes into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Va. A fourth plane was also hijacked and was intended to be crashed into the U.S. Capitol, but passengers overcame the hijackers and the plane crashed in Shanksville, Pa.
•June 8, 2008, Tokyo, Japan: A man drove his truck into a crowd of people, killing three. He then exited the vehicle and stabbed 12 people. In all, seven people were killed as a result.
•April 30, 2009, Apeldoorn, Netherlands: A man intentionally drove his car into a group of people amassed for a parade. He killed six and seriously injured another 12 before dying from the crash himself.

Others blunt objects:
•August 6, 2004, Deltona, Fla.: Four men decided to bludgeon 6 people using baseball bats because they wanted to steal an Xbox belonging to one of the victims. All of the attackers were old enough to buy firearms.
•July 20, 2009, Sydney, Australia: A family of 5 was bludgeoned to death as they slept. Most likely baseball bats were used in the attack.

“According to the FBI’s website, during the time period between 2007 until 2011, there were 2,918 people that were murdered with blunt objects (baseball bats, hammers, etc.),” Hunter reminds us. “During that same time period, there were 1,874 people that were murdered with rifles.”

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20120920/suicide-top-cause-of-injury-death

The top five leading causes of injury-related deaths were:
1.Suicide
2.Motor vehicle crashes
3.Poisoning
4.Falls
5.Homicide

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 Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.