Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bthompson18
11:04 PM on 01/22/2013
Jason, you might want to read a american history book and read about the founding fathers and what they had to say about Freedom and how to maintain it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:23 PM on 01/22/2013
Not too many on the right are buying into Obama's promise to stop at "enhanced regualtion" of guns. We were also not fooled when he came promising that no one would have to change their healthcare plan once he destroyed the Constitution and rammed Obamacare down our throats. But, as everyone now knows, not too many are able to keep their current plans as the providers are packing it in. Leaving people left to their own and to pick from what is left to choose from. Alas, it seems that only the exchanges will eventually be left to choose from. So, when Obama makes a promise and shakes your hand, do yourself a favor and first grab your wallet, second, count your fingers to see if you got them all back.
photo
c2wookie
I’m a NRA Conservative married to a Liberal.
11:28 PM on 01/22/2013
I'm counting, I'm counting. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,????. Oh hell.
02:51 AM on 01/23/2013
Your mind on Obama's policies and governing was made up way before he was elected in 2008 and therefore you will remain and will always be close minded to anything he proposes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:07 AM on 01/23/2013
Having lived in Illinois all of my life, I had the first hand knowledge of what and who Obama was and is prior to him deciding to run for president. I already knew who Obama was and I did not care for his policies and I knew he was a slick politician, trained in the Chicago Democratic Machine ways of campaigning.  I trusted my original opinion of Obama and I was proven right, time after time, since 2008. So yes, my mind was made up on Obama prior to 2008, what's that got to do with anything?
photo
c2wookie
I’m a NRA Conservative married to a Liberal.
08:28 AM on 01/23/2013
Since I know that you do not know me, are you sure?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kwco
In God we trust, everyone else pays cash
09:54 PM on 01/22/2013
"We have guns to protect ourselves and to hunt, but the reason they are constitutionally protected is to ensure "the security of a free state.""

Perhaps but the explanatory clause is just that - an explanation of, not a limitation on, the operative clauses. Courts have never interpreted explanatory clauses as limiting. Not with federal or state statutes, not with the Copyrights and Patents clause either. Why should they throw out 180 years of legal reasoning just to suit this authors policy position? The Supreme Court is not a court of public opinion.

Whats more the Bill Of Rights is not a buffet line. You don't get to walk up with your plate and only fill it with the stuff you like.
photo
TheBluesGuy
I'm too old to be governed by fear of dumb people.
02:37 AM on 01/23/2013
"Whats more the Bill Of Rights is not a buffet line. You don't get to walk up with your plate and only fill it with the stuff you like."
__________

Gonna steal this one, kwco. Fanned and faved.
06:09 PM on 01/22/2013
It's amazing to me how many people there are who can read minds posthumously.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bthompson18
11:12 PM on 01/22/2013
NO, we just see the writing on the wall. being a Liberal you wont get the point.
photo
c2wookie
I’m a NRA Conservative married to a Liberal.
11:28 PM on 01/22/2013
ROFLMAO
photo
Will Buckner
Beware those in whom the urge to punish is strong
05:48 PM on 01/22/2013
the constitution says the federal government isn't allowed to have a standing army domestically. try reading it
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:23 PM on 01/22/2013
nor have military forces occupy foreign soil and no specifics of maintaining an Air Force.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
susiewatusi
Dancing around words daily...
10:35 PM on 01/22/2013
no sir. the rights of the citizens to bear arms (to form militias) was to be a compromise to having a standing army. It was felt that it would acts as a "counter weight." they feared that a standing army is subject to being highjacked from within and could take over the government. It was the armed citizens of state militias who were to protect our duly elected government from that threat. The state militias are what we know as the "national guard." Some time in the not too far past (not sure about the timing) the feds took the right to control the national guard without permission of a state's governor so that pretty much left that piece of the constitution out to dry and rot. and since the concept that a state or citizen militia could possibly defeat the armed forces as they presently stand is absurd, then well, the idea of an armed citizenry for protecting against domestic or foreign threats is silly. The constitution must be read in light of what we have; not in light of what THEY had. They wouldn't have been able contemplate a tank....
photo
TheBluesGuy
I'm too old to be governed by fear of dumb people.
02:40 AM on 01/23/2013
"no sir. the rights of the citizens to bear arms (to form militias) was to be a compromise to having a standing army."
__________

The failed American Confederacy couldn't keep a standing army, 'cause half the states refused to pay their tax obligations.

Nothing changes, does it? Even 200 years ago Conservatives tried to duck out on their obligations.
05:12 PM on 01/29/2013
1903 Militia Act...which.. basically, destroyed the idea of a militia by turning it into something other than a citizens militia.
photo
Brian Bender
Moderate Independent
05:14 PM on 01/22/2013
A dependent clause is not a complete sentence, cannot stand on its own, and cannot convey a meaning.

e.g. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

An Independent Clause is a complete sentence, can stand by itself, can convey a meaning, and must first exist for the dependent clause to have meaning.

e.g. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

The independent clause defines the meaning of any complex sentence.
No rule or law predicates one preceding the other.

65% of Americans see the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny.

http://tinyurl.com/a7phc39
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
06:35 PM on 01/22/2013
The dependent clause, while not having meaning in itself, imparts meaning to the independent clause. It does modify it. If it didn't, it wouldn't need to be there.
photo
logansteele1
You can't have it both ways.
09:50 PM on 01/22/2013
Because a militia is regulated and necessary does not negate the right of the people to bear arms.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jstanavgguy
Proud member of the evil 1%
09:51 PM on 01/22/2013
While you are correct, it helps to review the words of the individuals who wrote the text, so as to understand exactly what they meant.

Now, have you done that in relation to the Second Amendment?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:24 PM on 01/22/2013
65% of Americans see what they want to see.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
QuietProfessional
Recovering Jedi
10:52 PM on 01/22/2013
I, however, only see that which is.
photo
TheBluesGuy
I'm too old to be governed by fear of dumb people.
02:42 AM on 01/23/2013
"65% of Americans see what they want to see."
__________

37 percent of all statistics are invented on the spot.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patrick Lewis
04:55 PM on 01/22/2013
I fully support comprehensive gun control legislation. That said, here's the point of the 2nd Amendment: The framers actually meant what the right wing gun nuts say they meant (go figure. . .sometimes they get it right.) The framers envisioned a well armed citizenry as a last defense against government tyranny. The framers reasoned that no government could BECOME tyrannical if the citizenry was armed and trained. The framers wanted to avoid what had happened in Europe where a tyrannical ruling class lorded authority over a subservient and defenseless underclass (including the middle class). For a modern example, Bashar Al Assad is finding out what happens when you push a well armed citizenry too far. The theory is that if they had been better armed to begin with, maybe he (or his father before him) couldn't have become tyrants in the first place. Not a perfect analogy but you get the point. So, I'm not a gun nut and I have no problem whatsoever with the reforms proposed recently by the President. But the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, contemplate a circumstance where American citizens may have to take up arms against the American governemnt. It's hard to get our 21st century minds around it. . .but that's actually what they meant by it.
photo
c2wookie
I’m a NRA Conservative married to a Liberal.
11:11 PM on 01/22/2013
Thank you.
photo
TheBluesGuy
I'm too old to be governed by fear of dumb people.
02:45 AM on 01/23/2013
"The framers envisioned a well armed citizenry as a last defense against government tyranny."
__________

Uh, no. The framers envisioned a return of the British army. And since the states had refused to pay for a standing army, the citizen militia means exactly what the Amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
photo
c2wookie
I’m a NRA Conservative married to a Liberal.
08:35 AM on 01/23/2013
Don't forget.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution, which states a purpose.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jason Stanford
Columnist for MSNBC and the Austin American-States
10:03 AM on 01/23/2013
Amen
04:44 PM on 01/22/2013
"There's a word for those who would take up arms against our government, and it's not "patriots."

Define 'our government'. If an innocent man kills a CIA trained assassin, did he take up arms agains our government? Did Matthew David Stewart in Ogden, Colorado? If Marine veteran Scott Olsen would have caught the smoke bomb police fired at him and threw it back, fatally injuring an officer, did he take up arms against our government? In fact, what if an active duty military officer and a police force get in a shootout, who is taking up arms against the government? (fyi, it happens with disturbing frequency)
I know you can't answer. Part of the problem is that government has encroached on every facet of American lives. Any one of the three letter agencies alone can ruin your life, regardless of guilt or innocence. I can concede that some of the doomsday preparers and militia members are nuts. I can concede that it wouldn't be wise for any armed group take on the better armed groups of police, military and government out there. But you need to concede that it may, and has numerous times, come to just that. The majority of people objecting to new gun legislation are just law abiding citizens who see yet another American right under attack.The only actions currently coming from our Congress are ones that restrict our rights and civil liberties or promote the haves over the have nots.
photo
TheBluesGuy
I'm too old to be governed by fear of dumb people.
02:46 AM on 01/23/2013
"The majority of people objecting to new gun legislation are just law abiding citizens who see yet another American right under attack."
__________

Misleading. The majority of people aren't objecting to new gun legislation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ShadowDancersX
United as one, divided by zero.
04:33 AM on 01/23/2013
Since that isn't what he said, it is not misleading. He said...
"the majority of people objecting" ...i.e. the majority of people (who are) objecting...which in no way implies that the majority of people (as a whole) are objecting.

It does help to actually read something before arguing with it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoEyed Jack
To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth
04:43 PM on 01/22/2013
Somebody needs to re-read the Declaration of Independence. We have the second amendment to make sure that we can hold our own government accountable. It is a critical check and balance. A government that wants to disarm us is almost by definition despotic.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
06:36 PM on 01/22/2013
Nice to see you admitting your belief that violent actions against elected leaders is a constitutional right, although it seems to conflict with Art. III, sect. 3, first paragraph.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoEyed Jack
To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth
10:25 PM on 01/22/2013
No, it is a natural right.  Our system of government was set up with the sole aim being the protection of our natural rights.  If that ceases to be the case, it is time to start over.
photo
IMOPINIONH8D
because I want it empty...
07:24 PM on 01/22/2013
Background checks and assault weapons ban is not gun confiscation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoEyed Jack
To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth
08:54 PM on 01/22/2013
Surely you are not so naive to believe that is the end game?
So here is a video of a NY state legislator asking that democrat proposals to confiscate semi-auto rifles not be published.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryUbJfg4tAo
DiFi has proposed that all semi-auto handguns and rifles (except for tube-fed .22 rifles) be subject to the NFA of 1934.  This would entail fingerprinting all current owners nationwide, requiring a $200 tax per gun, creating a registry, requiring a letter from your local law enforcement, and prohibiting any transfer, including transferring to your heirs when you die, even if they also pass the FBI background check.  This is confiscation.  
In addition, there are 9 states which disallow their citizens from even owning any NFA weapons, so citizens in these states would immediately have their guns confiscated.  This is confiscation.  Now, what were you saying about nobody is trying to take anyone's guns?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LouGots
10:56 AM on 01/23/2013
Records check were never a problem. We arfe behind anything which makes the critters Prohibited Persons and leaves us armed.

An assault weapons ban, however, is something else. That is most certainly confiscation. There are millions and millions of so-called
assault weapons" in private hands right now. Those are what we are buying and shooting--modern designs.

Furthermore, confiscatory taxation and onerous administrative burdens are de faco confiscation. The gun-grabbers' dream is that we not be so armed. Period.

We need not quibble about the language of the Second Amendment or over definitions of assault weapons--this is a battle of political wills, period. So be it. Let us see who is the stronger when all the lies about nobody wanting to take our guns have fallen away..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DJPotterWriter
04:29 PM on 01/22/2013
So, you wouldn't have supported the American revolution then? Kudos for being honest.

If people really cared about stopping violence, then they would call for the disarmament of the police and the government. You're much more likely to be wrongfully shot by law-enforcement than by a normal person. And let's not forget the millions killed by the U. S. government overseas. It's so sad that few people saw the disgusting irony in Obama's apparently grief-stricken reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting. Who would have guessed that Obama had personally authorized the assassinations of children, both American and foreign, by drone-strike overseas?
04:04 PM on 01/22/2013
"I read that as Americans can take up arms to defend their country, not against their country." You say it, but do you mean it? It's "theirs" to do with as they wish. Tyranny is different than losing an election, I think you know that. What happens when one side decides you no longer have a codified right? What to do then?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bthompson18
11:31 PM on 01/22/2013
when guns go tyranny begins.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SpeakupNation
Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the livi
03:59 PM on 01/22/2013
In fact, the Second Amendment may very well have been worded in that manner to placate slave owning states and their concerns about rebel slaves. The militias in those states were used primarily to patrol for and protect against runaway or rebellious slaves.
Patrick Henry explained at the ratification convention: "If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."
So the amendment itself has racist roots.
photo
c2wookie
I’m a NRA Conservative married to a Liberal.
11:17 PM on 01/22/2013
So do the first anti-gun laws, passed just after the War for Southern Independence, banning blacks from owning guns.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SpeakupNation
Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the livi
09:40 AM on 01/23/2013
Yep. We have a whole history of people much like those now on the right keeping guns out of the hands of African Americans. Now they try to pretend that they care about the safety and security of African Americans, and even try to co-opt MLK. They're disgraceful and shameless.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justamessenger
Father, Army vet, lawyer, libertarian and atheist!
03:57 PM on 01/22/2013
I do enjoy watching the process of 'changing the message.' It's not confiscation, it's regulation. It's not 'gun control,' it's 'gun safety.'

I would point out that 'well-regulated' does not mean 'subject to government regulation' as you seem to imply. Well-regulated, at the time of drafting and ratification, meant 'in good working order.' Feel free to check the Oxford English Dictionary on that one, they even provide handy references by year to show how usage has changed over time.

As your friend would know, the oath he took bound him to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. Yes, that may mean putting down an insurrection, but it may also mean joining one, depending upon the circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say people should rise up in arms and start a revolt. Far from it. Lexington & Concord did not result from the Colonists initiating hostilities, they responded to a government attempting to deprive them of their arms. There is a world of difference between those to things, as the latter is purely reactive and protecting an inherent right that has been recognized for centuries in England. It is a right now firmly ensconced in the Constitution, and is a right as vital today as it was in 1775.
photo
wmnorton
Moderate where moderate used to be
02:33 AM on 01/23/2013
Sorry to diillusion you but as some one who had an ancestor who was called to "defend the bridge at Lexington," I can state without any reservation that the American Revolutionalry War was not about the British trying to take our guns away. Had much more to do with the British requireing us to pay taxes without granting us representation in the British House of Commons.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justamessenger
Father, Army vet, lawyer, libertarian and atheist!
08:02 AM on 01/23/2013
Taxation was an issue, of course, but what pushed the matter from debate to open warfare was General Gage sending troops to seize munitions caches in Concord.
I also have forebears that fought at Concord served in the Continental Army following its creation by the Second Continental Congress.  
05:23 PM on 01/29/2013
Yet the shooting started when they came for the arms at Concord.
05:22 PM on 01/29/2013
Well said and so true.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
03:40 PM on 01/22/2013
The purpose? Skimping on having to pay an army. That early baggerism didn't end so well in 1812.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
06:37 PM on 01/22/2013
Exactly! A standing army was considered a likely source of tyranny given how much it would cost to support. Just look at Art. I, sect. 8, and compare graphs 12 and 13 to see which was considered the truly necessary military branch.
03:10 PM on 01/22/2013
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
etc.

Founders of a nation, great patriots, and now, to the democratic party, traitors to the crown once again.

So sad that we as a nation forget our birth, even as right now other nations citizens struggle for self rule we lose sight of self rule.

If a significant portion of a nation rebels, the nation was not self ruled, the different between traitors and patriots is size.
photo
c2wookie
I’m a NRA Conservative married to a Liberal.
11:19 PM on 01/22/2013
It was also said the different between traitors and patriots is which side you are tacking. Ben. Franklin