In response to:

NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Slams Obama’s Reference to ‘Absolutism’

Dread Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 1:52 PM
[The Second Amendment states, “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.” This absolute freedom is not open to reinterpretation.] No, it's not. But you simply choose to ignore the "well-regulated" part of the text. That implies that there can and should be proper laws on the books to govern the manufacturing, transportation, sale, use, and storage of firearms. What the President has proposed will not take your guns away. But I know no one will believe that, so feel free to flame me in your replies as a gun-grabbing commie anyway.
3204 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 4:33 PM
Well regulated means (in the context of the late 18th century) well equipped and trained.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 3:03 PM
SCOTUS has ruled that the RKBA is an individual right,and that is supported by the writings of the Founders.

Further,there is NO language in the 2nd restricting the RKBA to militias,"well-regulated" or not.

you folks seem to stop reading at "well-regulated militias",and mistakenly believe that it requires one to be in a militia to have the RKBA. that's wrong.
Timothy32 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 2:25 PM
well at the time every male was obligated to form a militia if the need arised. The men were to keep the basic load for combat at there own expense. One musket and ball and one bag of powder. So now all men should have a full auto M4 with a basic load of any soldier. Since under the US 302 I believe we are all subject to being in the militia.
jander Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 2:12 PM
Your reading comprehension is lacking. A militia may be regulated, but our freedom to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This president and his liberal supporters would like nothing more than to take away guns from everybody. Having people register their weapons is the first step. We've seen this over and over in almost every country that has criminalized guns. First they pass laws to have citizens register their guns. Then when they outlaw guns, it's easier to find them. Those that don't learn from the past are destined to repeat it.
LoneGunman2 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 2:08 PM
You might just want to read The Federalists Papers to help you understand what The Founders really meant when they wrote that 2nd Amendment! The way I interpret it is that I'm entitled to posses anything that my enemy possesses and that includes our own military, which this president wouldn't hesitate to use against us, IF they will follow that order!

Fascism is a disease or the narcissistic mind and Oblamo is full if it!

Be careful what you wish for. You may get what you wanted but not want what you got. What happens when his next EO dumps on YOUR rights!
rhinegarten Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 2:06 PM
Really, or did you simply choose to ignore the "shall not be infringed" part of the text?
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 2:06 PM
No, Dread, we don't ignore that at all. As SCOTUS said in US v. Miller (1939), this defines the type of weapons protected by the Second Amendment. The protected weapons are those normally carried by soldiers at the time the militia unit is formed. George Mason: "Who are the militia? The militia is the whole of the people."
"Well regulated" means "competent". The militia, when formed into units at need, were expected to be competent in the use of weapons. To that end, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is much commentary on the Second Amendment in the writings of the founders. Please read them. I would not call you any such thing. You are simply ill-informed.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 2:07 PM
There is no reason for you to continue that way if you are willing to read and learn.
InAmericaSince1627 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 1:54 PM
Dread,
"Well regulated" just meant target practice.
Education on the subject at hand is NOT your long suit..
John3839 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 2:02 PM
It also implies self-discipline in the use of weapons.
InAmericaSince1627 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 2:08 PM
True John,
I've seen the term "regulated" to mean number of shots over time and number of hits on the target.
"The Founders Second Amendment" by Halbrook (sp?) is an excellent source.
David1735 Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 3:10 PM
And properly trained and equipped.

President Obama’s inaugural address was arguably one of the most liberal speeches he’s ever delivered—but one line in particular drew the ire of NRA’s Wayne LaPierre:  “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

Speaking at the 56th annual Weatherby Foundation International Hunting and Conservation Award dinner in Reno, Nev., LaPierre said, “Obama wants to turn the idea of “absolutism” into another dirty word, just another word for extremism. He wants you to accept the idea of “principles” as he sees fit to define them. It’s a way of...