Posted on 06/15/2013 3:17:52 PM PDT by marktwain
In the aftermath of another senseless shooting spree in Santa Monica last week, the outcry was somewhat subdued. Have we become immune to periodic episodes of violence?
What better time to offer a judicious analysis of the Constitution's most debated amendment?
(snip)
Well regulated meant then as it does now -- government has a role in the gun debate. In fact, the original intent was far more intrusive than most gun advocates care to admit today.
(snip)
Each generation bears the burden to understand the Constitution through the lens of what was written but also by what it means in their lifetime. Relying solely on the intent of a group of individuals who could not possibly comprehend the world of today is shortsighted at best.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
What is the meaning of the word "is"?
A fairly routine lie about what "well regulated" meant at the time of ratification.
No comments allowed that I could find.
The leftist call for gun control after recent shootings focuses on the wrong issue. All the sensationalized shootings were committed by mentally ill persons who should have been locked up beforehand.
The word “regulate” had an entirely different meaning when the constitution was written. It literally meant to make regular. It did not mean ‘control’. The same applies to the commerce clause.
Why are Lefties more concerned about this 1% than they are about the other 99%?
“””” Have we become immune to periodic episodes of violence? “””””
The world has ALWAYS had periodic episodes of violence. It is human nature. No law will ever prevent it or make a difference.
Each generation bears the burden to understand the Constitution through the lens of what was written but also by what it means in their lifetime.
Fine. In our current context, the Federal government is a rogue criminal entity and the States need all the armed citizens they can get to regain their sovereignty.
“All the sensationalized shootings were committed by mentally ill persons who should have been locked up beforehand.”
Or killed in the commission of their crime by an armed citizen.
You right wingers and your "history". Don't you know that if we can just get the right legislation in place, we can have paradise right here on earth? We can ignore 6,000 years of human history, and the Bible's admonitions about human nature, and have Utopia. /sarc
Enough of the correct "laws" and administration, and you can make it that almost the only violence is that condoned by the State, though there is far more of it than there was criminal violence.
Statists do not generally care about State sponsored violence. If the State condones it, then it is fine with them.
It is similar to not haveing a problem with the police and military having guns. They are state controlled, so no problem.
This was bound to happen.
Now, what?
In the aftermath of another senseless liberal trash article in Mercurynews, the outcry is not so subdued. Have we become immune to periodic episodes of idiocy?
What better time to offer a judicious analysis of the Constitution’s least debated first amendment?
(snip)
Unregulated meant then as it does now — government has no role in the free speech debate. In fact, the original intent was far more intrusive than most reporters advocates care to admit today.
(snip)
Each generation bears the burden to understand the Constitution through the lens of what was written but also by what it means in their lifetime. Relying solely on the intent of a group of individuals who could not possibly comprehend the world of idiot liberals of today is shortsighted at best.
How can a document that goes years if not decades without taking a breath, be a living document?
It’s cast in stone Mr. Williams. Every so often we chisel a new block. Hardly the stuff of flesh and bones...
The Newtown school shooting tragedy currently is being “revived” as a basis for renewed demands for “more background checks,” a “remedy” wholly irrelevant to each of the most recent mass shooting sprees.
If the 2nd had been defended a fraction as much as the 1st, we wouldn’t be having this debate at all.
There was no need to regulate in those days. It was a free country.
Charlie Reese said it best years ago.
“A well educated elite, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to become educated shall not be infringed.”
This does NOT mean that only the ELITE have a right to be educated.
In California, the politicians decided to ban AW style rifles, but they had no pretext to go on.
So they set the anti-gun bill aside. Then they released PAT PURDY from a mental institution for (I believe) the 9th time.
HE then went out of state and bought an AK-47 style rifle.
Back in CALI, he bought a 9mm semi auto pistol, even passing the required waiting period.
Then he went to the school yard in STOCKTON, and shot a bunch of kids, finally killing himself with his pistol.
The Cali politicians immediately pulled out their anti-gun bill and passed it before any organization against it could be mounted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.