In response to:

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns?

Beachgoer Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:32 PM
"Shall not be infringed." Compromise of any sort IS an infringement. It does not seem that difficult to me.
ericynot Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:48 PM

"Militia" is what makes it more complicated. Are you in a militia?
spartacus3344 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:51 PM
No it doesn't, progressives love to try and spin it with that word.

Shall not be infringed applies to the right of the people. It has nothing to do with a militia. And before you latch onto the "well regulated" part, let me defuse that one for you too. It doesn't mean what you think it means....

Nice try though....
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:52 PM
There is no connection between the individual right and the militia.

Nice try, snot.
ericynot Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:10 PM

You must live outside the U.S. Around here the 2nd says: "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."

If two things are in the same sentence, they're connected.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to take away your guns. Your little manliness-augmenters don't interest me.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:28 PM
Ah, no, you arrogant liberal snot. I am retired from the US Military and reside in TEXAS, where I am a CHL. The SCOTUS has ruled that the individual right is not necessitated by performance in a militia. If you knew what you were talking about, you would already know this, and it is now clear that you don't know what you're talking about. My advice to you is to post less and read more. You wouldn't know manliness if it bit you on the a$$.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:29 PM
Do not again attempt to lecture me on the Second Amendment. I am the NRA, mental midget.
christiancon Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:36 PM
manliness-augmenters ---Without those manliness augmenters you would be mince meat-dead as a doornail. The fact is those weapons have protected you for years- and NO not just the police- not just the military. Those weapons in the hands of citizens in general have saved your puny as s indirectly your whole life. Thats what you dumb libs dont get- you live off the accumulated capital of a God fearing and Constitutional republic that the GUN and GUNS played a key crucial role and now you clowns are so smart you want to dismantle it. Stupid is too kind a word.
Bart56 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:37 PM
Come on folks. None of the amendments grant natural rights. They simply state that the federal government is forbidden from passing any laws that could infringe on these rights. Please note the 9th and 10th amendments if this isn't clear enough.

Suggesting the 2nd amendment somehow gives the feds the power to pass gun control laws just doesn't logically fit.
christiancon Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:48 PM
I D I O T.........enough said.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:54 PM
Drop dead, ahole. I'm retired military and my CHL has nothing to do with me being a real man for some time now. For all your posturing, you really are a pathetic old man. Leave these matters to Real Americans, now that I've proven you a fool. Now get out of MY state, ahole.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 4:05 PM
ooohhhh i',m so scawed of the scawy man....NOT.


I carry a real nice lock back gerber, too. Old man.
spartacus3344 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 4:07 PM
So now it comes out, you really do have a problem with guns.

So tell me, what is it about that particular inanimate object that gets your panties in a twist?
eddie again Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 4:31 PM
your credibility just took a extreme dive when you said you do not fear God.

no one is going to give any credence to the words of a person who does not fear their Creator who can condemn them to eternal misery.

that probably explains why you have such great difficulty in writing reasonable comments.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:50 PM
SCOTUS has ruled that the RKBA is not limited to militia service.

Further,there's NO language in the Second Amendment that restricts the peoples right to keep and bear arms to militias,"well-regulated" or not.
learn to read and comprehend English.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:51 PM
No,eric,that is how YOU misunderstand things.
this is how most gun owners feel;
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:53 PM
Eric,actually,your comments have little reason.

they tend to be emotional.
and that shuts down your reason.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:54 PM
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the...