View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Tammy Messina: Protecting Second Amendment

Posted: July 18, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 18, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Does anyone else find it interesting that our Founding Fathers made no mention of establishing a police force to protect the citizenry of the country?

They did, however, explicitly write into the Constitution that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

The Founder Fathers knew. They knew what it was like to be disarmed. They knew what it was like to be ruled without representation.

And they knew what it was like to have the government infringe on citizens’ rights.

They also knew that citizens needed to be able to defend themselves. No police force can ensure every citizen’s safety all the time. We have to have personal responsibility.

Unfortunately, so much of that responsibility has been stripped, and our right to keep and bear arms has been infringed. And not just a little bit ... a lot!

It’s a difficult balance maintaining safety while allowing an armed citizenry. Many say we have no need for guns and that we need even more gun control.

Yet statistics show that in cities where gun control laws are the strictest, crime escalates, especially gun-related crimes.

How can that be? If guns are against the law, where are all these guns coming from to commit these crimes?

Gun control advocates conveniently forget that criminals, by definition, do not adhere to the law. Gun control laws only control guns in law-abiding hands.

There’s no denying that some very sick people do very bad things with guns that result in senseless loss of life.

However, there’s also no denying that most of those tragic events, like Sandy Hook, Newtown, and Fort Hood, took place in “gun free” zones.

One has to wonder how things would have been different had someone on scene been armed and properly trained in defensively handling a firearm.

As we’ve moved away from predominantly rural society to more urban society, it seems that gun ownership is frowned upon.

Somehow we’ve turned into a society where average people with guns are a problem. But the Founders never intended for law enforcement to be the only people with guns.

That was not a coincidence. It was by design.

If you’ve ever been in an emergent situation where your safety is being threatened, who’s the first person you look for?

A police officer. Why? Because you think a law enforcement officer can protect you and stop the “bad guy.”

Why? Because that officer has a gun. Believe me, if all they were allowed to do is yell “halt” at the criminal, do you really think it would have the same effect just because they’re the law?

No, you know it wouldn’t. We look for them because we’ve been disarmed and can no longer protect ourselves.
Average, law-abiding citizens with firearms who’ve been properly trained in the use of those firearms are not the problem. Criminals are the problem.

They have been the problem long before gun control became an issue to talk about. And they don’t need a gun to wreak havoc on society.

If every gun was destroyed tomorrow, those bent on doing others harm would find another way to do it. The Internet is full of how-to videos made just for that reason.

Shootings make headlines. They’re tragic every time because they are either life-altering or life-taking.

What doesn’t make headlines are non-shootings — those instances in which a would-be criminal thought twice about robbing a restaurant that allows open or concealed carry, simply walking away instead.

Or the school district that is secure and without incident simply because it’s hired armed security on campus. Criminals rarely seek out a place where they expect to encounter life-threatening opposition.

The police and other law enforcement agencies do a good job, but they can’t be everywhere and they can’t protect everyone all the time. It isn’t realistic and it isn’t what our founders intended.

Every year the California Legislature puts up a series of gun control bills intent on little-by-little stripping citizens of their rights to keep and bear arms under the guise of making our state a little bit safer.

In actuality, they need to refer back to our U.S. Constitution (which they swore to uphold) and protect citizens’ Second Amendment rights to defend themselves should the need arise.

Even our state Constitution grants us that right in Article 1, Section 1. Notice the words “defending life”:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty.

So the question is: What’s more important to you, being able to defend your own life and your family against a criminal, or attempting to keep guns out of the hands of a criminal?

Tammy Messina is a resident of Santa Clarita, a local business owner and a producer for “The Real Side Radio Show.” She can be reached at tmessina@wildcat.la.

 

Comments

Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 9:24 a.m.

So the question is: What’s more important to you, being able to defend your own life and your family against a criminal, or attempting to keep guns out of the hands of a criminal?

For me, the ability to defend me and mine.

However, the bed wetting liberals believe second amendment supports are criminals. To them I say, I promise I will never use my weapons to help you out of respect for your believes and to honor your gun free zone on your lawn.


ricketzz: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:04 a.m.

This is a lame controversy. What makes sense in an urban setting makes less sense in a more rural environment. This issue will never be solved, is great for gun sales and is a major waste of time.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:12 a.m.

Really, ricketzz?

If it's such a "waste of time", then why don't the Dem/socialists stop their endless efforts to ban guns? Let's be real; who's really picking this fight in the first place?

Further, there's absolutely NOTHING in the Second Amendment that restricts rights to "rural environments". Not that I can find.

I don't consider defending my rights a "waste of time".


chefgirl358: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:35 a.m.

This is one of the best columns I have seen in a while. Well said and thank you!


OldReliable: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:39 a.m.

I recommend to those who oppose guns to show your strong solidarity with each by placing "Gun Free Zone" signs at your front door or lawn. Be brave.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:44 a.m.

OR, a few months ago I read an article -- and I wish I could remember where so I could link it -- about an activist group that went to their various local officials (who wanted some kind of gun ban) and suggested they do exactly that at each of their own houses.

Not a single one of the officials would do it, not surprisingly, and when pressed for a reason all they could do was hem and haw.

Plain, old-fashioned hypocrites, every one of them.


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:58 a.m.

Guy kills someone with a hammer, bat, car, or knife, and it's the guys fault
Guy kills someone with a gun, it's the guns fault.

I take is...If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that lib's are anti-gun. They will need the police's guns to take away other peoples guns. So they are very pro-gun, they just believe that the perfect and well intentioned government should be the only ones to have them. There is no such thing as control. Just centralizing gun ownership in the hands of people that feel they need them. Governments and criminals. Everyone else is a pawn in the middle.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 18, 2014 11:01 a.m.

Yeah, it's like blaming spoons for obesity.

It's absurd.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 18, 2014 11:03 a.m.

BTW, Dem/socialists always conveniently "forget" that "the shot heard 'round the world" at Lexington and Concord was all about gun control.

The Brits were moving to confiscate the colonists' guns when the first battles of the Revolution took place as those colonists decided they wanted to keep those guns.


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 11:09 a.m.

"Yeah, it's like blaming spoons for obesity."

or a 12oz soft drink.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 18, 2014 1:12 p.m.

Brian, love the spoon analogy, unfortunately it's true...they do blame guns for everything and not the random moron that gets ahold of the gun.

The disturbed guy (Elliot Rodger I think?) who stabbed and shot several people to death in Isla Vista recently...all everyone talked about was that he had GUNS, the media and the rest of the world completely skimmed over the fact that he stabbed his THREE roommates to death.


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 1:28 p.m.

CG...and hit several people with his car....


BrianBaker: Posted: July 18, 2014 2:27 p.m.

Yep. He was the LEAST effective with the guns. He took shots at several people and completely missed them.

100% fatality rate with the knife.


BAN KNIVES!!!!!

AND CARS!!!!!


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 4:44 p.m.

“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.”

Interesting that the Founding Father started this Amendment with the words ‘A well regulated . . .’ . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 18, 2014 6:49 p.m.

...and ended this Amendment with the words 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

Funny how the far-left ideologues cherry pick certain parts they like about the Constitution but purposely leave out the parts they don't like.


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:03 p.m.

Guess they didn't teach the definition of a comma at csun...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comma

Well regulated militia to secure the state
Right of the people to keep and bear arms

Two differnet things.

The meaning of a comma hasn't changed in a few hundred years, no matter how bad you want it to.


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:09 p.m.

com·ma (km)
n.
1. Grammar A punctuation mark ( , ) used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence.
2. A pause or separation; a caesura.
3. Any of several butterflies of the genus Polygonia, having wings with brownish coloring and irregularly notched edges.
[Latin, from Greek komma, piece cut off, short clause, from koptein, to cut.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:37 p.m.

"Well regulated" means "well equipped".

Anyone who understands the meaning of the words used at the time the Constitution was written knows that simple fact. Naturally, Captain Irrelevant had to make sure we knew he doesn't understand a thing about the Constitution.

Never fear, Captain, your profound ignorance of the subject is well understood by all.

The whole point was to assure that EVERYONE who was in the militia -- which was quite literally every single guy -- was able to have their own guns available to them if they were needed. In fact, there were laws in place itemizing the equipment list each person was mandated to have available, all at their own expense.

And since the one thing the Founders feared most was tyrannical government, they wanted to make sure the peeps would be able to overthrow the new government if it also became tyrannical.

The argument can easily be made that our current regime, and Fearless Leader -- the Golfer-In-Chief -- are proving the wisdom of their foresight.

I won't even bother posting again the US Code section that defines "militia" under current law. Suffice to say, virtually all able-bodied law-abiding citizens and legal residents are member of the "unorganized militia".




tech: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:45 p.m.

Indy has been rebutted conclusively on his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on multiple occasions and is just trolling. He's just recycling the "progressive" talking point. Ignore him.


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:48 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: ...and ended this Amendment with the words 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

Indy: Noted the complete 2nd Amendment:

““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.”

Therightstuff wrote: Funny how the far-left ideologues cherry pick certain parts they like about the Constitution but purposely leave out the parts they don't like.

Indy: You mean like Tammy?

But thanks for recognizing my prior comments in your rebuttal just exchanging the word 'left' with 'right'.


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:54 p.m.

Nitesho wrote: Well regulated militia to secure the state
Right of the people to keep and bear arms

Two differnet things.

Indy: In the same sentence, the first part ‘qualifies’ the second part . . . one of the reasons the Founding Fathers included the ‘first part’.

In any event, if our future was really solely based on grammar . . .

In any event, we have the largest army in the world . . . we don’t need Americans running around with military style ‘assault weapons’ designed only to ‘kill people’.

And the militia issue? That’s not small groups of separatist . . . we have an army . . .


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:58 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Well regulated" means "well equipped".

Indy: Since Nitesho got out the dictionary:

Regulated:

1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

Don’t see the words ‘well equipped’ but I didn’t really expect to . . .


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:59 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy has been rebutted conclusively on his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on multiple occasions and is just trolling. He's just recycling the "progressive" talking point. Ignore him.

Indy: Notice how the poster didn’t make one coherent point about the issue . . .


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 8:17 p.m.

Indy, can you tell me, without looking it up, what a military style assault weapon is?

Oh and please tell us more about how shotguns are limited to 3 shells....lol.


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 8:19 p.m.

Actually,, tech is right. I'm not going to feed the troll.

I really don't car what windy thinks. He's already showed his knowledge base when he said shotguns were limited to 3 rounds.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 18, 2014 8:40 p.m.

No, Captain Irrelevant, in the 18th Century, and in the Second Amendment, the term "well regulated" is exactly as I stated it.

In FACT, you can even find all the illustration necessary on the subject any normal person needs (which doesn't include YOU, of course, since you're such a legal scholar) in those pesky Federalist Papers, specifically #29, in which no less than Alexander Hamilton himself explains what the Second Amendment is all about.

But then, you know better than Hamilton what the Constitution and Amendments mean, right?

Just as I stated, the term "well regulated" means "well equipped", because as I wrote: "... there were laws in place itemizing the equipment list each person was mandated to have available, all at their own expense."

So, reading comprehension is also one of your problems. Again, we all know that already.


One last thing, to again repeat myself. Look up 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes. Just as I already stated, virtually every law-abiding able-bodied citizen and legal resident who's not on active duty IS a member of the militia.

Now stop making me repeat myself. I'm not the one who ends up looking dumb when I have to do it.


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 9:06 p.m.

Nitesho wrote: Indy, can you tell me, without looking it up, what a military style assault weapon is?

Indy: From these sources:

“An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are currently the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

“In the United States, assault weapon is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms. Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more tactical, cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.[1][2][3] The exact definition of the term varies among federal, state, and local jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting firearms manufacture, importation, sale, or possession.[4] Some firearms are specified by name. A key defining law was the defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.[5] At that time, the U.S. Justice Department stated "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."[3]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Nitesho wrote: Oh and please tell us more about how shotguns are limited to 3 shells....lol.

http://www.benelliusa.com/shop/limiter-plugs/magazine-limiter-plugs
A limiter plug limits firearm capacity to two shells in the magazine tube and one in the chamber to comply with various game laws that limit shotgun capacity. Always check local game and hunting regulations before heading into the field.


Nitesho: Posted: July 18, 2014 9:08 p.m.

Brian. Just copy and paste it to a notepad. It saves time for later.


tech: Posted: July 18, 2014 9:20 p.m.

"Actually, tech is right. I'm not going to feed the troll." - Nitesho

Precisely. Rebut his "argument" once and move on. The Black Knight will never concede a point. Lefty trolls thrive on the endless churn of failed ideas because they're not disposed to the intellectual curiosity that drives reflection and innovation. They can't accept the lessons of history if it conflicts with their ideology. Therefore, leftists continually attempt to rewrite it to conform.

Here's the video again as a refresher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 9:41 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: . . . and in the Second Amendment, the term "well regulated" is exactly as I stated it.

Indy: No, not you . . . but the Founding Fathers:

“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.”

The US didn’t have a standing army but today we do . . . the largest in the world.

And we have Homeland Security . . . the largest in the world.

And we have state and local police . . .

Thus, we don’t need untrained Americans with access to military style assault weapons designed only to kill people . . .

In any event, some conservatives still believe they are going to overthrow the US government. We saw them standing with Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy on his ranch, the ‘tax cheat’ who is robbing us of ‘fees’ from using federal lands to graze cattle thus making MY TAXES HIGHER!!!

And just look at the guy that was pointing a sniper rifle and authorized US agents!

Separatist? Anarchist? You decide . . . but it’s one thing to protest a government policy, it’s something else to threated with violence somebody working for the government.

In any event, if the public agrees with your strict conservative version of the Constitution, they you’re good to go!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 18, 2014 11:18 p.m.

Captain Irrelevant strikes again!

"BrianBaker wrote: . . . and in the Second Amendment, the term "well regulated" is exactly as I stated it.

"Indy: No, not you . . . but the Founding Fathers:

“'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.'

Which Founding Father Alexander Hamilton fully explained in Federalist Paper #29, as I CLEARLY stated before. Are you illiterate?

You: "The US didn’t have a standing army but today we do . . . the largest in the world."


Which doesn't mean or change anything. BTW, if you're going to try to dispute me, you should try using some actual facts. Depending on how you count "army", we're number #2 behind Communist China in "active military", and #7 if you include "paramilitary" in the count, behind China, N. Korea, Vietnam, the ROK, India, Iran, and Russia. Facts just aren't your strong suit, are they, Captain? You really should be embarrassed, but I know that's completely beyond your limited capabilities.

Let's move on, shall we?

You: "Thus, we don’t need untrained Americans with access to military style assault weapons designed only to kill people . . ."

Well, then, Captain, the answer's easy, isn't it? All you have to do is amend the Constitution. Because people with actual legal knowledge such as ... oh, say... the Supreme Court disagreed with you, most recently in the Heller and McDonald cases.

Then there's noted LEFTIST legal scholar Sanford Levinson in "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html) and Jonathan Turley (another "socially liberal" famed legal scholar) in "A Liberal’s Lament: The NRA Might Be Right After All" (http://jonathanturley.org/2007/10/04/a-liberals-lament-the-nra-might-be-right-after-all/) who say that basically everything you babble is a load of bullpuckey.

But hey! What do THEY know compared to YOU, Captain Irrelevant?

You: "In any event, if the public agrees with your strict conservative version of the Constitution, they you’re good to go!"

Then I guess I AM good to go, since all the polling data clearly shows that about 2/3 of the peeps are all for guns.

Dude, really. You KEEP making me repeat this stuff, and one of us just keeps looking dumber and dumber.

Hint: It ain't me...


BrianBaker: Posted: July 18, 2014 11:22 p.m.

BTW, one thing I forgot to repeat for you while I was repeating all those OTHER points:

"Look up 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes. Just as I already stated, virtually every law-abiding able-bodied citizen and legal resident who's not on active duty IS a member of the militia."


Sadly for YOU, that is the law.



ricketzz: Posted: July 19, 2014 8:59 a.m.

"Well regulated" means trained and disciplined. The Militia post Revolution mainly rounded up runaway slaves.

This will not be resolved as long as the NRA is banking big bongos on the paranoia.


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 12:08 p.m.

Concur on your accurate understanding of "Well regulated", ricketzz.

It's not paranoia from the NRA and its millions of members. There's a small, vocal and active segment of our society and politicians that support diminution of our 2nd Amendment rights so that effectively only agents of the state are armed. Criminals disregard all regulations, of course.

Paranoia is exhibited by those who irrationally fear responsible ownership of firearms by their fellow law abiding citizens. That fear is fueled by ignorance in our increasingly urban society.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 19, 2014 12:14 p.m.

Yep. In other words, it's not "paranoia" when there really are people out to get ya.


projalice11: Posted: July 19, 2014 1:00 p.m.

Yeah for Indy's above post posted July 18, 2014 @ 6:41pm..

Especially this part of the post:

"Thus, we don’t need untrained Americans with access to military style assault weapons designed only to kill people."


projalice11: Posted: July 19, 2014 1:03 p.m.

Oh by the way, Jobs in Calif. hit pre-recession levels****


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 1:40 p.m.

I don't recommend you rely on the representations of someone who's demonstrably firearm illiterate, projalice11.

I'll provide an opportunity to think for yourself.

Review these two links to rifle models:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_802553_-1_757784_757784_757784_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-750/model-750-woodsmaster.aspx

How do they differ in function? Which of the 2 rifles has greater lethality?


stevehw: Posted: July 19, 2014 2:04 p.m.

"BTW, Dem/socialists always conveniently "forget" that "the shot heard 'round the world" at Lexington and Concord was all about gun control.

The Brits were moving to confiscate the colonists' guns when the first battles of the Revolution took place as those colonists decided they wanted to keep those guns. "

Would you not want the government today to act against a group which was planning to overthrow it?


stevehw: Posted: July 19, 2014 2:10 p.m.

'Well regulated" means "well equipped". '

It also meant "well-trained", as in trained by the authorities to act as fighting force.

Anyone who has done more than read headlines should know that the "well-regulated militia" did not mean "regulated" as the word is normally understood. We got that.

But why did they put that clause in there? It's the ONLY part of the Bill of Rights with a prefatory clause...a clause which the Supreme Court blithely ignored.

And the definition of militia under current law does NOT mean "virtually every able-bodied citizen". It says explicitly that it is able-bodied MALES between 17 and 45 years of age.

Since you're over 45, YOU are no longer part of the militia.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 19, 2014 2:59 p.m.

Yeah, yeah, stevie-boy. We've been over all that before.

There's nothing in the Second Amendment that limits gun ownership to ONLY the militia. It merely gives a reason why the UNIVERSAL right "shall not be infringed".

I'll refer you to the same Federalist Paper I've now referenced TWICE for Captain Irrelevant: #29, written by Hamilton.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 19, 2014 3:09 p.m.

In the Bill of Rights the term "the people" is used 5 times; in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

Is it your position that in every instance they're only referring to the "militia"? Or only to people who are in the "militia"? Or that ONLY in the 2nd Amendment they're referring only to people in the "militia"?

Is that what I can look at as an example of "liberal logic", and why the term is an oxymoron?


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 3:40 p.m.

"But why did they put that clause in there? It's the ONLY part of the Bill of Rights with a prefatory clause...a clause which the Supreme Court blithely ignored." - stevehw

How did you arrive at that conclusion, Steve? Contrary to your assertion, the SCOTUS specifically addressed the prefatory clause, i.e. 1. (a, b), backed by research into contemporaneous documents and history.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

Entire ruling here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html --edited.


Indy: Posted: July 19, 2014 6:07 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "BrianBaker wrote: . . . and in the Second Amendment, the term "well regulated" is exactly as I stated it.

"Indy: No, not you . . . but the Founding Fathers:

“'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.'

Which Founding Father Alexander Hamilton fully explained in Federalist Paper #29, as I CLEARLY stated before. Are you illiterate?

Indy: Here again, when we actually read the Constitution ‘AS WRITTEN’ we understand the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Had they wanted to be more explanatory and include your religious conservative beliefs, they would have done so . . .

BrianBaker wrote: You: "The US didn’t have a standing army but today we do . . . the largest in the world."


Which doesn't mean or change anything.

Indy: In reality, it completely defeats your arguments . . .

We have the largest military in the world to protect us including Homeland Security and our police.

We don’t need untrained and ideology based Americans running around with military style assault weapons designed only to kill people . . . we’ve seen the disasters from mass murders in our movie theaters to our elementary schools.

The Founding Fathers started the 2nd Amendment with the worlds ‘A well regulated . . .’ . . . they knew the dangers of people running around with weapons unchecked . . . even at their time.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 19, 2014 8:16 p.m.

I've got to think about renaming you Captain Illiterate.

"Which Founding Father Alexander Hamilton fully explained in Federalist Paper #29, as I CLEARLY stated before. Are you illiterate?

"Indy: Here again, when we actually read the Constitution ‘AS WRITTEN’ we understand the intent of the Founding Fathers.

"Had they wanted to be more explanatory and include your religious conservative beliefs, they would have done so . . ."


Which is exactly what they DID, Captain, as I pointed out, by writing... wait for it... the Federalist Papers!

In this case #29, by Founder Alexander Hamilton.


Then you try to refashion and restate the same ignorant proposition, that "We have the largest military in the world to protect us including Homeland Security and our police."

Bzzz-ZAP!!!

Wrong again! China's military is #1 in the world, over double ours, no matter who you now want to lump in with the "military". We're not even close. Further, you lump in the cops and internal security forces of all those other countries, too, and we're still #4 or #5 or #6.

Further, the idea that the cops are part of a "standing army" is ludicrous beyond description.

Your ignorance apparently knows no bounds at all. You don't even bother doing basic research. You just spout whatever blabbering nonsense pops into your head, with no foundation to support it at all.

Finally this: "The Founding Fathers ...knew the dangers of people running around with weapons unchecked . . . even at their time."

Let's check the instant replay, shall we?

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
Zachariah Johnson

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms ..."
Richard Henry Lee

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
.
.
. --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 19, 2014 8:17 p.m.

More:



"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." and "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton

I think I've made my point. You don't know what you're babbling about. As always.


projalice11: Posted: July 19, 2014 8:18 p.m.

Again yeah for Indy:

"We don’t need untrained and ideology based Americans running around with military style assault weapons designed only to kill people . . . we’ve seen the disasters from mass murders in our movie theaters to our elementary schools"

"The Founding Fathers started the 2nd Amendment with the worlds ‘A well regulated . . .’ . . . they knew the dangers of people running around with weapons unchecked . . . even at their time."

Please understand the consequence **


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 8:44 p.m.

Care to answer the questions I put to you, projalice11?


BHirsh: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:20 p.m.

Indy, the term "well-regulated" as used in the context of both the day and the amendment had nothing to do with restrictions, it had to do with unit discipline and having the right equipment.

That aside, the term "well-regulated" modifies the noun "militia", not the noun "right". They aren't even in the same clause. It is the militia that is to be "well-regulated", while acting as such. The prefatory (dependent) clause announces the reason the guarantee is being enumerated. It neither creates nor places conditions upon the right. The operative (independent) clause declares the right as preexisting, of the people, and sacrosanct. Dependent clauses rely in independent clauses in the same sentence for their context, not the reverse.

English Grammar and Usage 101.

Your foolish "militia" argument has been destroyed. You might want to work up another one that has merit? --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:23 p.m.

"You might want to work up another one that has merit?"


He's never bothered before. Why would he start now?

LOL


ricketzz: Posted: July 20, 2014 9:29 a.m.

The British troops were attacking armories where weapons were stored. If Militia meant everyone has a military weapon at home, why is it so hard to buy a 50 caliber machine gun?


Nitesho: Posted: July 20, 2014 9:43 a.m.

Ricketzz's....dear lord learn history. They mandated by law that all guns be turned in from everyone.

And it's so hard to buy a .50 cal because of these inane gun laws the people like you want to keep shoving down our throats "for the sake of the children" yet hand out plan-b like they are breath mints. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: July 20, 2014 5:07 p.m.

I've read Heller, and I find it to be so much semantics designed around the goal: ignoring the prefatory clause.

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

Really? The ONLY amendment with a prefatory clause, and it's just verbiage that has no effect on the other part? Why bother to put it in then? They didn't bother putting in any clauses which "announced a purpose" anywhere else. Seems pretty out of character with the rest of the document, doesn't it?

"In the Bill of Rights the term "the people" is used 5 times; in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

Is it your position that in every instance they're only referring to the "militia"? Or only to people who are in the "militia"? Or that ONLY in the 2nd Amendment they're referring only to people in the "militia"? "

Try making a sensible argument, Baker.

Explain to us why the founding fathers put in this little "explanatory" statement on ONE and ONLY ONE of the amendments. They didn't explain why freedom of speech was a right, or what the rationale was for trial by jury, or the reason for requiring warrants before searches, or what a good idea freedom of religion is. They only put in an explanation in ONE instance...guns. Something about why having a well-trained militia was a good thing, and how it was necessary to protect the state.


tech: Posted: July 20, 2014 6:31 p.m.

"I've read Heller, and I find it to be so much semantics designed around the goal: ignoring the prefatory clause."

Historical and grammatical evidence has been provided to illuminate. I'm curious why you're clinging to your opinion, Steve, i.e. that the SCOTUS "ignored" the prefatory clause when in fact they specifically addressed it. You may not agree with it but you've offered no alternative explanation.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 20, 2014 7:40 p.m.

Stevie-boy, that WAS a sensible argument, and since it blows holes in your silly argument you don't want to admit it.

In that case, all you have to do is answer he question. It's quite simple. Let me restate it for you, more simply so that even YOU can understand it:

In the Bill of Rights the term "the people" is used 5 times; in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. Are you saying that in ONE INSTANCE, the 2nd Amendment, they're NOT referring to the populace as a whole?

Then why didn't they just write "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Or "the right of the people IN THE MILITIA shall not be infringed"?


Hmmmm...?


Let me requote those pesky Founders. It might help clear things up for you (even though you are pretty hopeless when it comes to logic):

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
Zachariah Johnson

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms ..."
Richard Henry Lee

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." and "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton




BrianBaker: Posted: July 20, 2014 7:47 p.m.

Oh, I almost forgot, stevie.

I'll AGAIN refer you to Federalist Paper #29, written by Hamilton.

You're as bad as Captain Irrelevant when it comes to reading references, which is pretty funny when one thinks about how often you guys are always bleating about wanting them.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 20, 2014 8:10 p.m.

Anyone here wish to suggest, or better still, actually work on getting gun training in our schools to be part of the education program?

Tammy Messina is rumored to have a close, personal relationship with one of the Hart School District Governing Board members, so an agenda item before the Hart Board on a "gun training" program should be within reach.

If we can teach kids to drive, why not teach them to shoot? Actually, far better driver training would save a lot of lives. (Even with the advent of the car that drives itself.) So would complete training on the safe, effective use of firearms.

By the way, just what does "average American" mean, as used in the above column? No one who uses this phrase, (and many do) ever define what they mean.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 20, 2014 8:21 p.m.

That used to be commonly offered in schools, Allan. The problem right now would be the state laws banning guns on campuses. Any real "training" program would be crippled by that restriction.

The NRA used to (and probably still does) offer a gun safety program for schools called the "Eddie Eagle Program".


tech: Posted: July 20, 2014 8:33 p.m.

The Eddie Eagle Program is operational and would be an excellent start because it's focused on firearm safety rather than use or ownership.

http://eddieeagle.nra.org


tech: Posted: July 20, 2014 8:37 p.m.

"Average" in context of the column is non-specialized, i.e. not a member of law enforcement or military.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 20, 2014 10:21 p.m.

As "Prop 8" in California demonstrates, laws change constantly. "No guns on a school campus" could be left as it is, if the courses were taught off campuses.

The time and distance between a concept and its implementation are directly proportional to the number and commitment of those working on it.

The last time I bought a firearm, no "use education" was advertised, displayed, mentioned, promoted, or even suggested. This was at an excellent store, also part of a decent firing range. Neophyte adult gun users (who will diminish over time with a school program) need education also.

The "hook" for kids to want to participate might well be gun use, given the glamour associated with gun use, so wide spread in "entertainment".

Those who believe that gun ownership and use are American rights have a superb opportunity to enshrine these concepts even more deeply, by acting to put a "gun use curriculum" in our public schools.

The practical safety and self defense benefits are worth the effort as well.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 20, 2014 11:25 p.m.

"This was at an excellent store, also part of a decent firing range."

Sounds to me like Oak Tree.


therightstuff: Posted: July 20, 2014 11:53 p.m.

Indy: """Here again, when we actually read the Constitution ‘AS WRITTEN’ we understand the intent of the Founding Fathers. Had they wanted to be more explanatory and include your religious conservative beliefs, they would have done so . . ."""

'AS WRITTEN' means 'AS I INTERPRET IT' as proof by this poster's insistence that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is in the U.S. Constitution or as the far-left believe, this was the Founding Father's 'intention'.

Ahem....Had they wanted to be more explanatory and include your far-left liberal beliefs, they would have done so . . ."""


ricketzz: Posted: July 21, 2014 10:42 a.m.

I am neither pro broad interpretation of Amendment 2 nor anti-gun. I grew up carrying guns. My brother is a certified Glock technician.

The Storm Troopers will use your possession of weapons as a reason to show no mercy. They don't look like Ninja Turtles by accident. Shoot at them all you want with your pop-guns. They will return fire with a tactical nuke.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 21, 2014 2:09 p.m.

Oh, right... I forgot all about that. The feds are gonna open fire on neighborhoods with tactical nukes.

Good grief. Where do you come up with this stuff?


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:02 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Which Founding Father Alexander Hamilton fully explained in Federalist Paper #29, as I CLEARLY stated before. Are you illiterate?

"Indy: Here again, when we actually read the Constitution ‘AS WRITTEN’ we understand the intent of the Founding Fathers.

"Had they wanted to be more explanatory and include your religious conservative beliefs, they would have done so . . ."

Indy: Again, the poster forgets . . . that the Constitution isn’t the ‘Federalist Papers’.

And trying to ‘add’ interpretation against the Constitution if important, could have been amended or even included in the document.

But it wasn’t.

I’m not interested in have a Constitutional ‘rewrite’ by a religious conservative poster that doesn’t like the way the Constitution was written.

Can’t make it any simpler than that . . .


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:05 p.m.

BHirsh wrote: Indy, the term "well-regulated" as used in the context of both the day and the amendment had nothing to do with restrictions, it had to do with unit discipline and having the right equipment.

Indy: Do you feel that our military, the largest in the world, our police and homeless security are unable to defend us?

Do we need separatist groups running around with military style assault weapons to ‘help protect me’?


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:09 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: Anyone here wish to suggest, or better still, actually work on getting gun training in our schools to be part of the education program?

Indy: I find the suggestion interesting in that most kids I’ve met aren’t interested in guns . . . but they are terrified of lunatics having access to military style assault weapons.

Why does an American need a military weapon?

Why does the Army ‘train’ people to use them before letting them have access to them?

And then takes the weapons away when people leave the military?

Do you see weapons as the solutions to the crime problem?


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:20 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Here again, when we actually read the Constitution ‘AS WRITTEN’ we understand the intent of the Founding Fathers. Had they wanted to be more explanatory and include your religious conservative beliefs, they would have done so . . ."""

'AS WRITTEN' means 'AS I INTERPRET IT' as proof by this poster's insistence that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is in the U.S. Constitution or as the far-left believe, this was the Founding Father's 'intention'.

Indy: Let’s see again, the 2nd Amendment starts with: “A well regulated . . .’

Clear. Unambiguous, and the Founding Fathers wanted it in the Bill of Rights.

Therightstuff wrote: Ahem....Had they wanted to be more explanatory and include your far-left liberal beliefs, they would have done so . . ."""

Indy: But now we have motivated religious conservatives that want to discredit the ‘originalist’ views of the Founding Fathers . . .

We saw ‘separatist’ militia members at the Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy’s ranch to which they were pointing their weapons at authorized government agents to collect ‘back taxes’ that were owed the American people for grazing on the public’s land.

Can everyone see what’s going on here?

Do we need small groups of conservative separatist believing that it is ‘they’ the know how best to run the nation?

Would you elect any of these folks to anything?

And why did two of the militia ‘attendees’ at the ranch ‘MURDER’ two Las Vega policeman in ‘cold blood’ (assassinated them)?

I can see why the Founding Fathers went to great length to form our government to ‘promote the general welfare’ were concerned at the time with small groups of people that simply deny any authority and reject our nation of ‘laws’.

If you want change, go to the voting booth. Get Americans to agree that they need military style assault weapons to overthrow the government versus using the ballot box . . . and simply dismiss what our Founding Fathers did to create a nation of laws to protect our individual liberty.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 21, 2014 5:58 p.m.

Gaaawd, you really ARE Captain Illiterate, and write the absolutely most unintelligent comments on this site.

YOU, Captain, wrote: "Had they wanted to be more explanatory and include your religious conservative beliefs, they would have done so . . ."

Then, once I AGAIN point out the Federalist Papers, which are EXACTLY what you said they "would" have done, you revert back to your profoundly ignorant talking-point babble about how the Fed Papers aren't the Constitution.

No, Captain, they're NOT, but they ARE the explanation. How old are you, anyway? Five?

If you have any further questions, simply refer to the actual QUOTES of the Founders which I've now posted here twice. Why don't you try to refute THOSE, instead of constantly retyping your absurdly irrelevant and repetitive nonsense?



As I said before, every time you regurgitate this stuff, one of us just keeps looking dumber and dumber.

I reassure you, it's not me.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 21, 2014 6:02 p.m.

I'll make this REAL easy for you, Captain.

Here are the direct quotes from 6 of the Founders. Refute THOSE:

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms ..."
Richard Henry Lee

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." and "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton


tech: Posted: July 21, 2014 6:12 p.m.

Time to move on, folks. With the Talking Points Indy Troll Bot, every day is Groundhog Day. He's impervious to rebuttals via history, logic, legal precedent, grammar, empirical data, etc.

Write once for the benefit of the community but don't feed the troll. It's what he wants.


therightstuff: Posted: July 21, 2014 7:13 p.m.

Indy """Would you elect any of these folks to anything?"""

How about Harry Reid who thought Obama was not too black and that he didn't speak with a Negro accent...unless he wanted to.

Any problem with THIS elected official, Indy?


therightstuff: Posted: July 21, 2014 7:28 p.m.

Indy: """But now we have motivated religious conservatives that want to discredit the ‘originalist’ views of the Founding Fathers . . ."""

If you want to see the 'originalist' views of the Founding Fathers, read the Declaration of Independence or better yet, go visit Washington, D.C. Their dependence on God is inescapable.

If it was their intention to separate church and state, why didn't they just say that in the Constitution when they had the chance? Instead, we're left with the far-left innuendo and speculation based on their own ideology.

Funny how they do that - and then accuse others of doing the same thing. I think the mental disorder is known as 'projecting'.


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 8:54 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Indy wrote: "Had they wanted to be more explanatory and include your religious conservative beliefs, they would have done so . . ."

Then, once I AGAIN point out the Federalist Papers, which are EXACTLY what you said they "would" have done, you revert back to your profoundly ignorant talking-point babble about how the Fed Papers aren't the Constitution.

Indy: Not sure why you don’t understand the intent of the Founding Fathers . . .

When they wrote the Constitution, it wasn’t on paper to wrap your belongings.

They knew what they wrote and approved it.

It’s the law of the land.


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 8:59 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: Can everyone see what’s going on here?

Do we need small groups of conservative separatist believing that it is ‘they’ know how best to run the nation?

Would you elect any of these folks to anything?

And why did two of the militia ‘attendees’ at the ranch ‘MURDER’ two Las Vega policeman in ‘cold blood’ (assassinated them)?

Therightstuff wrote: How about Harry Reid who thought Obama was not too black and that he didn't speak with a Negro accent...unless he wanted to.

Indy: Notice again the religious conservative ‘dodges’ the questions . . . tries to pretend they don’t matter when in fact, they are key in understanding the conservative mindset.

Who would support separatist that would aim their rifles at authorized federal agents?

Why would religious conservatives support a ‘tax cheat’ in Bundy?

Why would Sean Hannity parade this guy around on his show?

We need these questions answered . . . not ignored . . .


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 9:07 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """But now we have motivated religious conservatives that want to discredit the ‘originalist’ views of the Founding Fathers . . ."""

If you want to see the 'originalist' views of the Founding Fathers, read the Declaration of Independence or better yet, go visit Washington, D.C. Their dependence on God is inescapable.

Indy: Yes, religious conservatives try to ‘link’ God to the Constitution using the D of I.

But interestingly, the Constitution doesn’t mention God . . .

And the only references to religion are to ‘separate church and state’ though the non-establishment clause in the 1st Amendment and prohibit a ‘religious test’ for holding public office.

Why do you think religious conservatives ignore this intent of the Founding Fathers?

Why are they pushing for more religion in government and ignore the intent of the Constitution?

Therightstuff wrote: If it was their intention to separate church and state, why didn't they just say that in the Constitution when they had the chance?

Indy: Interestingly, this is what Thomas Jefferson wrote to answer these questions:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

Indy: Sadly, religious conservatives here again ‘ignore’ what doesn’t fit their beliefs . . . the sign of ‘true ideologues’.

It’s the primary reason the Founding Father kept religion out of organized government knowing the intolerance that true believers would hold against ‘non-believers’.

The Founding Fathers having escaped religious persecution from religion run governments in Europe didn’t want to replicate the tragedy here . . . thus the 1st Amendment, insisted upon by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 9:08 p.m.

Tech wrote: Time to move on, folks. With the Talking Points Indy Troll Bot, every day is Groundhog Day. He's impervious to rebuttals via history, logic, legal precedent, grammar, empirical data, etc.

Indy: Your task today is to write this 100 times on the chalkboard . . . then report back . . . noting that repetition doesn’t make it real!


therightstuff: Posted: July 21, 2014 9:55 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: How about Harry Reid who thought Obama was not too black and that he didn't speak with a Negro accent...unless he wanted to.

Indy: Notice again the religious conservative ‘dodges’ the questions . . .

No, but we certainly noticed how YOU dodged the question. As far as I know, religious conservatives roundly condemned the words of Bundy. I certainly do.

Will you do the same for Harry Reid or do you stand by his words about Obama?


BrianBaker: Posted: July 21, 2014 9:56 p.m.

"Indy: Not sure why you don’t understand the intent of the Founding Fathers . . .

"When they wrote the Constitution, it wasn’t on paper to wrap your belongings.

"They knew what they wrote and approved it.

"It’s the law of the land. "



Um... hey, Captain Illiterate, did you even TRY to read the 6 Founding Fathers' quotes I put there?


I'M not the one calling you either ignorant or a liar....... THEY are.

You'd better hop in your Wayback Machine and set them straight, because according to THEM, you're full of..............

baloney.


therightstuff: Posted: July 21, 2014 10:03 p.m.

Indy: """And the only references to religion are to ‘separate church and state’ though the non-establishment clause in the 1st Amendment and prohibit a ‘religious test’ for holding public office."""

Can you show us where the words, "separation", "church" or "state" appear in the 1st Amendment? No personal attacks to avoid the question, just please provide the answer.

And a personal letter from Jefferson to a bunch of Baptists is NOT the Constitution. If you want to know the intention of the Founding Fathers, let's ask one. John Witherspoon, a contemporary of Jefferson, the first President of Princeton University and a man who trained many of the Founding Fathers, once wrote:

"God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."

So you have the words of a true Founding Father who was there when the Constitution was written and signed by many of his students....

Or Indy's interpretation to support his personal ideology.

I'll go with Witherspoon.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 21, 2014 10:08 p.m.

Tech, there's one HUGE difference between the Captain and "Groundhog Day".

In the flick, Bill Murray's character ultimately wises up.

There's no way in hell the Captain and the word "wise" will ever be affirmatively linked in the same sentence... ever.


But given that, I'm here to have fun, and it is SO much fun to help the guy make himself a ridiculous spectacle!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 21, 2014 10:21 p.m.

TRS, good catch, but even funnier is that Captain Irrelevant constantly bleats about HIS interpretation of the Constitution, and no one can convince him -- conveniently -- that the Founders wrote all kinds of things that clearly 'splain exactly what they meant in that document, most notably the Federalist Papers.

Nope! Not acceptable to the Captain. Mainly because I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what they are or mean.

And YET, he keeps blathering about the mythical "wall" that somehow prevents religion into the public political arena, and what does he cite as his "source"?

Something NOT actually in the Constitution! Worse, he WRONGLY cites Jefferson as being the "support" for his position, managing at the same time to turn Jefferson's intent 180 degrees on its head.

So, let's count 'em up. What are the charges?

Hypocrisy? Check.

Illiteracy? Check.

Ignorance? Check.



Did I miss anything?

If not, cleared for takeoff.



tech: Posted: July 21, 2014 10:30 p.m.

I'm unconvinced he needs the assistance to make a spectacle of himself but please yourself, Brian. :-D


tech: Posted: July 21, 2014 11:50 p.m.

I'm taking a break from work, smoking a nice Rocky Patel Burn and a thought just occurred to me.

Most of the Founders were highly educated. The authors of the Federalist Papers were sophisticated, literate men.

Perhaps the content is beyond our resident Constitutional "expert". It may explain the avoidance.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 22, 2014 1:35 a.m.

LOL, tech.

No, no assistance.

Let's just consider me the highlighter. The guy putting the punctuation mark on silliness.



therightstuff: Posted: July 22, 2014 4:03 p.m.

Also keep in mind that during Jefferson's presidency it was not unusual to use the Capitol for church services, the podium from the House of Representatives as the pulpit and worship led by the tax-payer-funded Marine band. None of the Founding Fathers had a problem with it.

Indy would have wet his knickers.


Indy: Posted: July 22, 2014 10:09 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Therightstuff wrote: How about Harry Reid who thought Obama was not too black and that he didn't speak with a Negro accent...unless he wanted to.

Indy: Notice again the religious conservative ‘dodges’ the questions . . .

No, but we certainly noticed how YOU dodged the question. As far as I know, religious conservatives roundly condemned the words of Bundy. I certainly do.

Indy: Why don’t republicans leaders do as you do?

And why did Hannity simply start ignoring Bundy without addressing what he said?

And why did Fox not fully report when the two Bundy Ranch attendees killed the two Las Vegas policemen in cold ‘execution style’ blood?


Indy: Posted: July 22, 2014 10:12 p.m.

BrianBaker posted: "Indy: Not sure why you don’t understand the intent of the Founding Fathers . . .

"When they wrote the Constitution, it wasn’t on paper to wrap your belongings.

"They knew what they wrote and approved it.

"It’s the law of the land. "

Indy: Let me put this another way, regardless of what the Founding Fathers had to say in external ‘papers’, when it came to the FINAL document, the Constitution ‘as written’, is really all you need to understand.

I’m sure you can find even statements today about this or that legislation from people on both sides but in reality, just like you’re see with the ACA law, it’s what ‘written’ in the law or in this case, the Constitution.

It’s really that simple . . .


Indy: Posted: July 22, 2014 10:20 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """And the only references to religion are to ‘separate church and state’ though the non-establishment clause in the 1st Amendment and prohibit a ‘religious test’ for holding public office."""

Can you show us where the words, "separation", "church" or "state" appear in the 1st Amendment? No personal attacks to avoid the question, just please provide the answer.

Indy: Yes, why does the SCOTUS continue to support the ‘separation of church and state’?

Therightstuff wrote: And a personal letter from Jefferson to a bunch of Baptists is NOT the Constitution. If you want to know the intention of the Founding Fathers, let's ask one. John Witherspoon, a contemporary of Jefferson, the first President of Princeton University and a man who trained many of the Founding Fathers, once wrote:

"God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."

Indy: Yes, but this guy didn’t write the Bill of Rights . . . this was the work and effort of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

And why did Jefferson use the separation phrase in this: ‘that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

He’s actually putting the exact verbiage of the 1st Amendment in the same sentence!

In any event, like I noted:

- God isn’t mentioned in the Constitution
- Religion is only mentioned in Constitution to separate it from government and to prohibit a religious test for holding office

I’m sure the ‘learned men’ who wrote that Constitution would have be clear to cite a religious context for same in the document but they didn’t.

And of course, the same Founding Farhers that were escaping religious persecution in religion run governments in Europe wisely didn’t want to make that mistake again.

You ignore all of this for your own ‘beliefs’ . . . great . . . but the reality is ‘what it is’.


Indy: Posted: July 22, 2014 10:25 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Also keep in mind that during Jefferson's presidency it was not unusual to use the Capitol for church services, the podium from the House of Representatives as the pulpit and worship led by the tax-payer-funded Marine band. None of the Founding Fathers had a problem with it.

Indy: Yes, but the government wasn’t ‘endorsing’ religion in its function.

Today, politicians like to such up to religious groups for votes . . . and there’s no honor in that considering the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to create a ‘nation under law’ not religion.

If that makes you upset . . . well, get over it.

But the real question is why do religious conservatives want so badly to put more religion into government against the specific writing in the Constitution to the contrary?

Why would we want the US to get into theocratic territory when we see that religious governments like those found in Iran and Saudi Arabia restrict, reduce or revoke the liberty and civil rights of the nonbelievers of the dominate religion in control of those governments?

You can ignore that but I’m not going to.


Indy: Posted: July 22, 2014 10:28 p.m.

Tech wrote: Most of the Founders were highly educated. The authors of the Federalist Papers were sophisticated, literate men.

Indy: And thanks for supporting the issue of the Constitution ‘as written’.

Any comments made ‘outside the document’ are all well and good but the reality is that the document ‘stands alone’ as the 'law of the land'.

If those ‘highly educated’ Founding Fathers were as you suggest, they knew full well what the Constitution was written to say.

I appreciate you confirming that.


therightstuff: Posted: July 22, 2014 10:41 p.m.

Indy: """And thanks for supporting the issue of the Constitution ‘as written’."""

Show us the part where it written about the separation of church and state. --edited.


tech: Posted: July 23, 2014 1:14 a.m.

"If those ‘highly educated’ Founding Fathers were as you suggest, they knew full well what the Constitution was written to say.

I appreciate you confirming that." - Indy

Does this mean you'll stop attempting to rewrite the 2nd Amendment?


ricketzz: Posted: July 23, 2014 9:44 a.m.

I used "tactical nuke" to demonstrate the absurdity of believing that Amendment 2 gives citizens the power to guard against their own government. They have a word for taking up arms against our own soldiers.


therightstuff: Posted: July 23, 2014 10:55 a.m.

"""They have a word for taking up arms against our own soldiers."""

They also have a word for people who negotiate with terrorists.


Indy: Posted: July 23, 2014 5:43 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """And thanks for supporting the issue of the Constitution ‘as written’."""

Show us the part where it written about the separation of church and state. --edited.

Indy: Happy to comply . .

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . “

And Thomas Jefferson actually went out of his way to help in his day explaining and indeed ‘coining’ phase ‘separation of church and state’:

“…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

Want to ignore Thomas Jefferson . . . go ahead . . . but your credibility on this issue is already gone . . .


Indy: Posted: July 23, 2014 5:48 p.m.

Tech wrote: "If those ‘highly educated’ Founding Fathers were as you suggest, they knew full well what the Constitution was written to say.

I appreciate you confirming that." - Indy

Does this mean you'll stop attempting to rewrite the 2nd Amendment?

Indy: Hey, I’m for what the Founding Fathers wrote where they started ‘A well regulated . . .”.

The ‘highly educated’ knew exactly what they wanted with respect to gun ownership and who should use them . . .

Thankfully, we have a military and police that enforce our liberty and freedom . . . not a bunch of loosely groups of separatist militias . . . who sadly take the ‘law’ in their own hands . . . witness the two that left the Bundy Ranch and killed those two Las Vegas police officers in ‘cold blood’.

I think I’ll take the Founding Fathers suggestion, create a government to ‘promote the general welfare’ and use their courts to settle disputes.

Sounds more than fair to me . . .


Indy: Posted: July 23, 2014 5:50 p.m.

Ricketzz wrote: I used "tactical nuke" to demonstrate the absurdity of believing that Amendment 2 gives citizens the power to guard against their own government. They have a word for taking up arms against our own soldiers.

Indy: Notice none of the conservatives here deny their belief in overthrowing our federal government . . .

They believe a small group of elitist separatist ‘know what's best’ . . . sad that these folks have such little confidence in our nation.


Indy: Posted: July 23, 2014 5:51 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """They have a word for taking up arms against our own soldiers."""

They also have a word for people who negotiate with terrorists.

Indy: Yes, but it’s two words: Ronald Reagan.


tech: Posted: July 23, 2014 6:49 p.m.

"The ‘highly educated’ knew exactly what they wanted with respect to gun ownership and who should use them . . " - Indy

Precisely. Every citizen. To pretend otherwise if non-factual and constitutes forum trolling.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8


Indy: Posted: July 23, 2014 8:56 p.m.

Tech wrote: "The ‘highly educated’ knew exactly what they wanted with respect to gun ownership and who should use them . . " - Indy

Precisely. Every citizen. To pretend otherwise if non-factual and constitutes forum trolling.

Indy: It would seem almost ‘self-evident’ the that Founding Fathers would ‘insist’ on ‘a well regulated militia . . . ‘ knowing that the US at that time had no formal military.

Today, we don’t let our soldiers after completing their service to keep their ‘militarized’ weapons consistent with the Founding Fathers ‘intent’ of the 2nd Amendment. Again, self-evident . . . including the actual words used in the amendment.

In any event, there’s no doubt what the Founding Fathers wanted for the new nation ‘under law’ since they actually ‘wrote it’ in the Constitution and Bill of Rights . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 23, 2014 9:01 p.m.

Indy: Yes, but it’s two words: Ronald Reagan.

Once again, you give Barack Obama a total pass for arbitrarily releasing one alleged deserter for five of the world's top terrorists. How can you breathe with your nose pressed so far up Obama's ass?


ricketzz: Posted: July 25, 2014 10:34 a.m.

Does Tech have any revolutionary quotes from the Founders made since Ratification? 1793? They made most of the noble stuff in the Declaration of Independence illegal. If you try to overthrow the government you go to Federal prison. I have nothing against firearms, per se. I dislike the cultures attendant to the hardware.


tech: Posted: July 25, 2014 1:23 p.m.

Here's a jumpstart to your individual research efforts, ricketzz:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

What, specifically, is it about the "culture" of those who possess, use and defend the right to private firearms that you dislike? Use me as an example.

Here are others:

http://www.nrawomen.tv/home/list/profiles


ricketzz: Posted: July 26, 2014 10:35 a.m.

I propose a deal. We can keep our popguns if we disband the standing armies. That's the justification in your list of cites (including Dred Scott?). The people need to be armed because real men don't need no stinking standing armies. I am all for that. 10 guns per man, woman and child if we just give up being the Foreign Legion.


tech: Posted: July 26, 2014 6:32 p.m.

Alter the entire world order to a system of peaceful, cooperative democracies engaged in free trade and you're there, ricketzz.

Let us know when you're ready.


tech: Posted: July 26, 2014 6:36 p.m.

Speaking of the Foreign Legion, tell us about your efforts to convince France to remove all military forces out of Francophone Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_French_military


tech: Posted: July 27, 2014 1:53 p.m.

D.C. Second Amendment Decision

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235214482/Dct-Opinion


ricketzz: Posted: July 28, 2014 10:02 a.m.

The Middle East was very happily living on a barter system in villages, tents. They were organized into strong governments by US, UK, in order to facilitate efficient extraction of hydrocarbon. They have no concept of what you call "democracy" and if we (and Israel) represent the result of said philosophy they want no part of it.

The sooner we admit we aren't perfect and do not have a Divine charge to free the world the sooner we can reclaim our greatness. We are run by industrialists and bankers (and firearms lobbies). Once the People wrest back control it will get better.


tech: Posted: July 29, 2014 2:10 a.m.

The "People" of "Occupy" couldn't manage to prevent chaos, violence and filth in their encampments. Boy Scouts are more disciplined.


ricketzz: Posted: July 29, 2014 9:30 a.m.

You know nothing about "Occupy". They are non-violent. They are seen as a threat to the Bankster Occupation so they get the full treatment. Agents provocateur join marches and cause trouble. Black Block anarchists join Occupy marches and break bank windows; the media is too lazy (or otherwise dis-incentivized) to tell the truth. Occupy Wall Street lives every time somebody on TV talks about the 99%.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/occupy-wall-street-history-survival/


tech: Posted: July 29, 2014 11:25 p.m.

Sexual Assaults Reported At "Occupy"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assaults-occupy-wall-street-camps/story?id=14873014


ricketzz: Posted: July 30, 2014 12:50 p.m.

Many Occupy Wall Street people are former Scouts, Marines, Police Officers, etc. The welcoming nature of the camps did backfire at times; the police were sending derelicts to the camps to create chaos. Dumping them at the front just like they were homeless Santa Claritans being bused to Los Angeles Street in Skid Row. The Feds were doing their usual sabotage and entrapment. The banks wanted assassinations. It was quite the PR war. You really needed to watch it in real time on streaming video, as it happened.


tech: Posted: July 30, 2014 9:48 p.m.

Of course! All Revolutionary People's Councils are defeated by traitors, conspiracies and enemies, eh?

Emmanuel Goldstein lives! :-D


ricketzz: Posted: July 31, 2014 9:39 a.m.

This is state sponsored censorship on behalf of criminal commercial entities. The full weight of the security apparatus was unleashed on these people for calling attention to the kleptocracy. And you make silly Orwell jokes.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=occupy+fusion+centers+banks+security+assassinate



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...