In response to:

When I Want a Progressive’s Opinion on What Guns I Should Have/Hunt with, I’ll Give it to Them

w-smith-84 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 1:35 AM
Doug lives in his own little straw-man universe: "progressives hate hunting and would love nothing more than to bring that activity to a grinding halt" I grew up hunting, retain a substantial number of firearms, spend time on the range and go bird hunting every year. So, grow up, Doug and quit LYING about things you know nothing of! 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. "A well regulated militia being necessary" - now explain to me Dougie, exactly what does this PROVISION of the 2nd Amendment mean? Tell me, Doug, are you in a "well regulated militia"? Yea, right. You're a JOKE, Doug. And NOBODY takes you seriously.
Don664 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 10:04 PM
The clause before the comma is a secondary clause. The complete sentence that follows it is the meat of the whole amendment, and it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And by law, all able bodied males are in what the law calls the secondary militia, and they will be expected to show up with a gun. Please go back to 8th grade English and re learn how to parse a sentence.
BTW do you know any conservatives who are anti-hunting? Neither do I. But every anti-hunter in the country probably voted for Obama. And all the anti-hunters I read about or know are socialists.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:03 AM
Wsmith,tell US what "A well-regulated militia being necessary" actually means in the Second.
It does NOT restrict the RKBA to militias,nor does it require that a citizen BE in any militia to have the RKBA. "well-regulated" describes a militia,but it does NOT require the RKBA to be "well-regulated".

Did you not take English in school?

BTW,SCOTUS has ruled that the RKBA belongs to individuals,not militias.
It makes NO sense for a government to prohibit itself from infringing on it's right to keep and bear arms. it's makes complete sense that gov't is prohibited from infringing on the citizens RKBA.

the entire Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT,not the people.
Seawolf Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:00 AM
It means you should be able to create an almost instant militia from the citizens themselves, the founders did NOT want standing armies here at home. Good God you people are stupid. This is how liberals get elected people, people who are greedy and incredibly ignorant of history VOTE.
MudontheTires Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 2:44 AM
"Doug lives in his own little straw-man universe"

And you don't Winston?

"Tell me, Doug, are you in a "well regulated militia"?"

If he is or isn't is none of your damn business Winston.

"You're a JOKE, Doug. And NOBODY takes you seriously."

We say the same about you Winston.

MudontheTires Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 3:43 AM
And I'll need to add: Enough people take Doug seriously that he has both a column and a radio show.

Do you Winston?
oldshortfatboy Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 2:33 AM
Well regulated = well trained, dimwit winnie. Can you spell gfy?
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:06 AM
in colonial times,"well-regulated" means smooth functioning.

as in a "well-regulated" clock keeping good time.
restoreliberty Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 2:14 AM
You obviously need both a history lesson and a lesson in geopolitical terminology.

A well regulated militia means all able bodied adult citizens of a state, with adequate numbers of weapons to arm for defense against a tyrannical government. Most states have a militia, made up of citizen volunteers, that can be called up during times of crisis to support the National Guard.

A state is a geopolitical term that means the boundary of land containing a nation.... nations, countries, states all mean the same thing

Maybe you should spend more time research matters so that you have a better understanding. Just trolling to sling insults only demonstrates your ignorance and bias.
SpiritInterface Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 2:36 AM
My ignorance and bias? I am not the one ascribing modern definitions to archaic language. I have read extensively on history and geopolitical terminology. I have also studied the history and use of military terminology as used throughout history. "National Guard" is a modern creation conceived of with in the last hundred years.

At the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution a "Well Regulated Militia" was an armed Citizenry equipped with the latest military weapons that they could afford.

What part of "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" can't you understand?

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only Right that is specifically granted to the People and not the government.
MudontheTires Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 2:45 AM
Spirit, restore liberty is responding to winnie the prog.
SpiritInterface Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 2:53 AM
restoreliberty Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 6:26 AM
Spirit - my post was to w-smith who apparently is unaware that we have 23 active state militias in this county as well as an untold number of non-state militias.

I was simply tagging on to your comment so as to not "cut in line" so to speak.

I am a female collector and fully support the citizen's right to own, and use guns as necessary.
cambeul41 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 6:32 AM
@restoreliberty --

Well put!
SpiritInterface Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 1:59 AM
A well armed CITIZENRY.

Try reading a history book written before the 1960s.
My buddy, Green Beret badass Bryan Sikes, shot a massive whitetail buck last week during our South Texas Purple Heart Adventure. He whacked said muy grande with a LaRue Tactical OBR chambered for the glorious .308 Win. round. Oh and BTW, Sikes used a high capacity magazine during this hunt.

For those of you who aren’t hip to the LaRue, it is a weapon that progressive darlings say we should not have because we don’t “need” such a weapon for hunting.

Hunting, according to these wizards of odd, is what they think our founding fathers had in mind when...

Related Tags: Guns Hunting Hunting Rights