In response to:

10 Facts for Liberals: Why Gun Control Can't Stop Another Newtown Massacre

paranoidmystic Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 12:41 AM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
t252 Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 8:51 PM
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 8:13 AM
Says NOTHING;it makes NO restriction of the People's right to keep and bear arms.
There is no language in the Second that limits the RKBA to militias,"well-regulated" or not.
SCOTUS has ruled that the Civil right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.

As you Libs would say,"it's settled law."
Joseph64 Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 6:23 AM
Throughout history the word militia has generally meant anyone capable of bearing arms who is not part of the regular armed forces. So even if you are trying to make the point that the 2nd Amendment only applies to military units (a point with which the Supreme Court disagrees) you still lose because as I mentioned before everyone is considered militia if they are capable of bearing arms and by 'capable' I mean both physically and mentally. Loonies and criminals need not apply.
MudontheTires Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 4:44 AM
" "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" "

Ok, you can quote the 1st half of the 2nd Amendment. Now what's your point, if any?
alopekos teumesios Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 12:57 AM
How many times must you pinheads parse the Bill of Rights with this same stupid line of reasoning? The fact is that you parsed out a subordinate clause that cannot stand alone as a complete thought. That should be a clue. genius. Is English your second language? The next part of the amendment can stand alone as a complete sentence and statement of an INDIVIDUAL, not a state right. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Can it possibly be any clearer?
NewJAl Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 12:51 AM
Seems neither paranoid nor mystical.
Our guns are to protect us from an over-reaching and imperious Government. Without that, we could leave off possessing guns, but we are getting more and more of it, and so gun sales are rising, because people are not stupid. Where Progressives have gun laws, only the criminals have guns.
Once again, my favorite Liberal is a pretty young girl, in a march to get more stringent gun laws. She is proud that she is modern and free-thinking, because she smokes pot. But she lives in a State where pot smoking is illegal. Such is the reasoning capacity of a Liberal.
NewJAl Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 12:55 AM
I maintain that knowing citizens had guns in their homes was a deterrent to any land invasion by Japanese, in WW11, and everybody in the Country should know how the crime rate has dropped in the Southern town where the mayor has, successfully, gotten a gun into most of the homes.
The press will keep a lid on that.
oldshortfatboy Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 2:59 AM
My S.O. had a friend on facebook who is a typical demented liberal who hates guns and thinks no one should have them, and everyone should kiss obozo's rectum. I have resisted going on facebook because I would have to ask the dimwit libtard where does she buy the pot she smokes every day, and how is that war on drugs working out. But she is too stupid to see the comparison of war on drugs and war on gun ownership. Neither will work.

There are now calls from the Left for gun control legislation in response to Adam Lanza's unconscionable mass killing of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary. However, very few people seem to be asking the most basic question of all before getting started: What gun control legislation could have stopped Adam Lanza?

The answer is "none."

Let's consider a few alternatives:

1) The school was already a "gun free zone;" so obviously that wasn't effective. Of course, the sort of people who would respect a "gun free zone" in the first place are the very ones you wouldn't have to worry...