Replies

You wrote to flashbunny #119 and to 45Auto #107:

It --- [The right to bear arms] --- wasn't even IN the constitution until amended.
Read the amendment and you will see that it clearly states the militias' purpose " ... being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." --- says nothing about protection FROM the state.

Their [the militas] practical function was almost entirely to protect the citizenry from Indian attacks. Against a real army they were of limited use ----

--- Nor do I believe the amendment was pointed at the government since militia's would not stand a chance against a modern army (nor did they in the 1787.)

Nor is there anything in the second amendment which prevent some laws wrt firearms being legitimate, initially it did not even apply to the states only the fedgov.

Unless you believe that the Crips and Bloods have the RtKaBA and continue in their lawbreaking ways.
The question is what laws ARE justifiable and necessary.

With the spread of CC laws it appears those laws are being reduced.

Most of us on the FR recognize that the AW ban is unnecessary --
But it should be clear that the possibility of an extension would not exist unless the majority of the people supported the idea.
When enough are against it it will go away.

That is what needs to be addressed and worked on not quixote campaigns against real friends and fellow patriots.

______________________________________

You brand yourself as a believer in the 'militia' theory of the 2nd.. -- then go on to say:

-- "Nor do I believe the amendment was pointed at the government" ---

An outright admission that, to you, our various levels of government are not bound by "shall not be infringed"..

To ice the cake, you claim that blacks in LA who are suspected of gangsterism have no RKBA's as such laws may be "justifiable and necessary".

And to finish up you make an emotional appeal that we should allow majority rule to win on the AWB renewal, --- as when maybe a new majority gains power it would "go away", -- using the same harebrained theory..

Jsuati, my boyo, you are WAY over the edge here..
-- Thanks.. Bizarro posts like yours are alotta fun..

I have no "militia theory" merely quoting the words of the amendment itself hardly implies such a thing.

Looks like you can attempt distortion of anything but are rarely successful with those who can read. Nothing in the second amendment indicates it to be directed AT the state but it clearly states that it exists to PROTECT A FREE STATE. It is true that initially it did not include the states and they routinely violated the BoR until the 14th amendment theoretically put a stop to that.

Though Jesse and Rev. Al don't like it FELONS are not allowed to legally possess firearms. I have no problem with that any more than I do with not allowing inmates to possess them in the joint.

How is the statement of a simple FACT an "emotional appeal?" When the majority of the voters stops falling for the gungrabbers bullshiite the gun control laws will be thrown out. Nothing emotional there and it shouldn't be hard for even you to grasp the point.