The Teddy Bear Second Amendment: First and foremost, I am not against private gun ownership. If the government swooped in with its Black Helicopters to take them, I would be by your...

MsCentralia

First and foremost, I am not against private gun ownership. If the government swooped in with its Black Helicopters to take them, I would be by your side helping in the resistance. We have the right to bear arms...but. We do not have the right to be irresponsible in bearing those arms. The either/or thinking of some gun enthusiasts and the NRA is infantile at best, but predominantly deadly.

Our most cherished right or freedom, what truly marks a nation as a Republic or democracy, is our First Amendment. If that one right alone is honored, there is true liberty in that country. Yet we have a number of restrictions on this fundamental cornerstone of freedom, that in no way interferes with the exercise and protection of this right. How does the Second Amendment compare to this bedrock of our nation? Should it also be subject to reasonable restrictions to avoid dangers to the common good and public safety and the unalienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If not, why not?

I gave my daughter a Teddy Bear when she was four years old. A year later the stores came out with a Teddy Bear that had sharp claws and teeth and was animated to act as if it were in the wild. I passed on that one. A single-shot musket is not an AR-15. How would the Second Amendment read today or even have a place in the Bill of Rights if the AR-15 was around at that time?

Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable.

However, the same SCOTUS everyone on the Right now hates and objects to their decisions, will immediately and hypocritically turn to the SCOTUS decision on guns. Curious. The Right admits and insists that SCOTUS has been wrong on a number of issues and wants to end their existence, yet on instruments of violence find them an impeccable source. Which is it? Agreeing with you makes them wise and disagreeing means they should be ousted? Grow up!

MrEd Loc: Georgia

MsCentralia wrote:

First and foremost, I am not against private gun ownership. If the government swooped in with its Black Helicopters to take them, I would be by your side helping in the resistance. We have the right to bear arms...but. We do not have the right to be irresponsible in bearing those arms. The either/or thinking of some gun enthusiasts and the NRA is infantile at best, but predominantly deadly.

Our most cherished right or freedom, what truly marks a nation as a Republic or democracy, is our First Amendment. If that one right alone is honored, there is true liberty in that country. Yet we have a number of restrictions on this fundamental cornerstone of freedom, that in no way interferes with the exercise and protection of this right. How does the Second Amendment compare to this bedrock of our nation? Should it also be subject to reasonable restrictions to avoid dangers to the common good and public safety and the unalienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If not, why not?

I gave my daughter a Teddy Bear when she was four years old. A year later the stores came out with a Teddy Bear that had sharp claws and teeth and was animated to act as if it were in the wild. I passed on that one. A single-shot musket is not an AR-15. How would the Second Amendment read today or even have a place in the Bill of Rights if the AR-15 was around at that time?

Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable.

However, the same SCOTUS everyone on the Right now hates and objects to their decisions, will immediately and hypocritically turn to the SCOTUS decision on guns. Curious. The Right admits and insists that SCOTUS has been wrong on a number of issues and wants to end their existence, yet on instruments of violence find them an impeccable source. Which is it? Agreeing with you makes them wise and disagreeing means they should be ousted? Grow up!

First and foremost, I am not against private gun o... (show quote)

Well, I can see by your response that you have no idea what the 2nd amendment is or what it means. Try doing some more research before you try this one again.

pafret Loc: Northeast

MsCentralia wrote:

First and foremost, I am not against private gun ownership. If the government swooped in with its Black Helicopters to take them, I would be by your side helping in the resistance. We have the right to bear arms...but. We do not have the right to be irresponsible in bearing those arms. The either/or thinking of some gun enthusiasts and the NRA is infantile at best, but predominantly deadly.

Our most cherished right or freedom, what truly marks a nation as a Republic or democracy, is our First Amendment. If that one right alone is honored, there is true liberty in that country. Yet we have a number of restrictions on this fundamental cornerstone of freedom, that in no way interferes with the exercise and protection of this right. How does the Second Amendment compare to this bedrock of our nation? Should it also be subject to reasonable restrictions to avoid dangers to the common good and public safety and the unalienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If not, why not?

I gave my daughter a Teddy Bear when she was four years old. A year later the stores came out with a Teddy Bear that had sharp claws and teeth and was animated to act as if it were in the wild. I passed on that one. A single-shot musket is not an AR-15. How would the Second Amendment read today or even have a place in the Bill of Rights if the AR-15 was around at that time?

Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable.

However, the same SCOTUS everyone on the Right now hates and objects to their decisions, will immediately and hypocritically turn to the SCOTUS decision on guns. Curious. The Right admits and insists that SCOTUS has been wrong on a number of issues and wants to end their existence, yet on instruments of violence find them an impeccable source. Which is it? Agreeing with you makes them wise and disagreeing means they should be ousted? Grow up!

First and foremost, I am not against private gun o... (show quote)

Your interpretation is a stretch. The militia was the people and a law passed in the 1700's defined the militia as every able bodied male between certain ages, I believe 18 to 50. This law required this group of citizens to acquire and maintain a rifle of the latest design, ammunition, powder, shot and any other necessities such that the governor could call out a ready armed force to meet any military exigency. Hence the militia is not an organization, as is recognized and defined in Federal Law, but instead were armed citizens. It should be noted that certain of these citizens were required to be armed whereas all others were not prohibited from keeping and bearing arms. Your modern interpretation was not what was intended or meant in the Constitution or in subsequent Federal Law clarifying the second amendment.

maureenthannon

MsCentralia, You're right. What I find disturbing is that one of the Presidential Candidates wants to take away our First Amendment Right. Hillary said on April23,2015, at the Women'snWorld Summit that"Laws have to be backed up with resources and politicaql will. And deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed." The Constitution gives Americans the free exercize of religion. How can any body be okay with some one who wants to be President deciding what American people cqn believe? Hillary's more Orwellian than "1984".

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

MsCentralia wrote:

First and foremost, I am not against private gun ownership. If the government swooped in with its Black Helicopters to take them, I would be by your side helping in the resistance. We have the right to bear arms...but. We do not have the right to be irresponsible in bearing those arms. The either/or thinking of some gun enthusiasts and the NRA is infantile at best, but predominantly deadly.

Our most cherished right or freedom, what truly marks a nation as a Republic or democracy, is our First Amendment. If that one right alone is honored, there is true liberty in that country. Yet we have a number of restrictions on this fundamental cornerstone of freedom, that in no way interferes with the exercise and protection of this right. How does the Second Amendment compare to this bedrock of our nation? Should it also be subject to reasonable restrictions to avoid dangers to the common good and public safety and the unalienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If not, why not?

I gave my daughter a Teddy Bear when she was four years old. A year later the stores came out with a Teddy Bear that had sharp claws and teeth and was animated to act as if it were in the wild. I passed on that one. A single-shot musket is not an AR-15. How would the Second Amendment read today or even have a place in the Bill of Rights if the AR-15 was around at that time?

Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable.

However, the same SCOTUS everyone on the Right now hates and objects to their decisions, will immediately and hypocritically turn to the SCOTUS decision on guns. Curious. The Right admits and insists that SCOTUS has been wrong on a number of issues and wants to end their existence, yet on instruments of violence find them an impeccable source. Which is it? Agreeing with you makes them wise and disagreeing means they should be ousted? Grow up!

First and foremost, I am not against private gun o... (show quote)

Your argument is specious.

If AR-15s had been around during the drafting of the constitution, we would be carrying hand held lasers today if not something more powerful.

The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with weaponry available at that time and to think so is, as you say, infantile at best.

A2 had everything to do with the man in the street being able to protect himself and his family from the tyrannical grip that our nation arose from. It provided for everyone to own firearms and be able to coalesce into the force necessary to take down any such attempt of tyranny within our own government.

MsCentralia

MrEd wrote:

Well, I can see by your response that you have no idea what the 2nd amendment is or what it means. Try doing some more research before you try this one again.

Try presenting your own research, if you have any. Sticking your tongue out is not, contrary to many here, an argument.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

WOW.. okay, I can only recommend that you watch the video provided by Loki on the 2nd Amendment. To help you out, here is the link he posted to his thread. http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/14/2nd-amendment-give-right-gun/?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad= it is by far the best video I have seen on this subject.

Further, it is important to review your statement "Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable. " As to the meaning of the word "militia," it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them. Let us understand what our founding fathers had to say.... Madison says that a militia consists of "the whole people, except for a few public officials." Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that "if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense," a right which he declared to be "paramount" and finally, Zacharia Johnson said "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." And again, I must defer to James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." I am a gun owner.... and I have had training. My grandson, age 10 owns a gun, and is trained... in fact, all the gun owners I know has been trained.

The responsibility for safe handling and use of firearms rest with the owner.... not the government. It is the gun owners' responsibility for safe keeping of that weapon... There are more than sufficient laws limiting gun ownership.

MsCentralia wrote:

First and foremost, I am not against private gun ownership. If the government swooped in with its Black Helicopters to take them, I would be by your side helping in the resistance. We have the right to bear arms...but. We do not have the right to be irresponsible in bearing those arms. The either/or thinking of some gun enthusiasts and the NRA is infantile at best, but predominantly deadly.

Our most cherished right or freedom, what truly marks a nation as a Republic or democracy, is our First Amendment. If that one right alone is honored, there is true liberty in that country. Yet we have a number of restrictions on this fundamental cornerstone of freedom, that in no way interferes with the exercise and protection of this right. How does the Second Amendment compare to this bedrock of our nation? Should it also be subject to reasonable restrictions to avoid dangers to the common good and public safety and the unalienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If not, why not?

I gave my daughter a Teddy Bear when she was four years old. A year later the stores came out with a Teddy Bear that had sharp claws and teeth and was animated to act as if it were in the wild. I passed on that one. A single-shot musket is not an AR-15. How would the Second Amendment read today or even have a place in the Bill of Rights if the AR-15 was around at that time?

Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable.

However, the same SCOTUS everyone on the Right now hates and objects to their decisions, will immediately and hypocritically turn to the SCOTUS decision on guns. Curious. The Right admits and insists that SCOTUS has been wrong on a number of issues and wants to end their existence, yet on instruments of violence find them an impeccable source. Which is it? Agreeing with you makes them wise and disagreeing means they should be ousted? Grow up!

First and foremost, I am not against private gun o... (show quote)

MsCentralia

pafret wrote:

Your interpretation is a stretch. The militia was... (show quote)

Very good. Thank you. I wish I had the site where I found most of what you say but essentially the militia was a state's right topic. No matter what the state ruled as far as a well-regulated militia, the Federal Government had no right to infringe on that ruling lest there was a domestic threat in its regulations or purpose. There is no indication anywhere that an individual just by being a citizen had a right to bear arms. But what of the hunters dependent on game? Or home protection on the frontier? This is where the Second Amendment really kicks butt. How Left wing and so progressive.

Such essential use of firearms by hunters and frontiersmen, which anyone living then would claim essential, had to be in the mind of our Founding Fathers: such a fact was inescapably mundane. It was everyday life. Yet forward thinkers that they were, they insisted in the 2nd Amendment those people be part of a well-regulated militia, or in other words that all who owned such weapons be put under state authority. Well-regulated infers training and discipline, which means certain restrictions in their usage. Check out all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights: there are limits and restrictions.

MsCentralia

maureenthannon wrote:

MsCentralia, You're right. What I find disturbin... (show quote)

I do not like Hillary or back her. The comments that you mentioned are enough to vote against her. Do so! Write in anyone and pull the lever.

MsCentralia

Docadhoc wrote:

Your argument is specious. br br If AR-15s had ... (show quote)

Lol, nice leap on the AR-15 at that time. Specious but cute.

Why did it not have to with weaponry at that time?

The militia was considered the weakest part of America defense. Throughout the Revolution, they frequently broke and ran. But the states were still proud of their citizens. As they were considered no real threat to Federal Control, a gracious allowance was given to them to form their own well-regulated militia. WELL-REGULATED MILITIA (how do you guys miss those words?). What constituted well-regulated varied from state to state and morphed into the vague. This fact did not change the restrictions the 2nd Amendment imposed: WELL-REGULATED! How does that translate into no restrictions? Not be "infringed" deals only with the State's right to well-regulate a militia without federal interference. Not individual ownership!

MsCentralia

Pennylynn wrote:

WOW.. okay, I can only recommend that you watch the video provided by Loki on the 2nd Amendment. To help you out, here is the link he posted to his thread. http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/14/2nd-amendment-give-right-gun/?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad= it is by far the best video I have seen on this subject.

Further, it is important to review your statement "Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable. " As to the meaning of the word "militia," it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them. Let us understand what our founding fathers had to say.... Madison says that a militia consists of "the whole people, except for a few public officials." Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that "if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense," a right which he declared to be "paramount" and finally, Zacharia Johnson said "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." And again, I must defer to James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." I am a gun owner.... and I have had training. My grandson, age 10 owns a gun, and is trained... in fact, all the gun owners I know has been trained.

The responsibility for safe handling and use of firearms rest with the owner.... not the government. It is the gun owners' responsibility for safe keeping of that weapon... There are more than sufficient laws limiting gun ownership.

WOW.. okay, I can only recommend that you watch th... (show quote)

Nothing you said escapes the inescapable vortex of "well-regulated." Of course, we have no records of what "regulated" means, or what "well-regulated" means. But it does strongly suggest a central control and training of some sort. Well-regulated does not suggest membership in a gun club. Or un-regulated personal use, no matter the reason. WELL FREAKING REGULATED! Lol, get it! MILITIA--get it. How on earth do you guys skip over or ignore those words to come back with unrestricted firearm possession by all citizens? It is down the rabbit hole. It defies reason and and sanity.

All I needed was a renowned English professor to parse this sentence of the 2nd Amendment to know the intentions of our Founding Fathers and a little research to understand why their heavy-handed restrictions on guns by the citizens. I will still watch the myopic video that scans for confirmation bias, but go back to basic English as to the wording of the 2nd Amendment and you will see that you wrong.

PeterS

MsCentralia wrote:

First and foremost, I am not against private gun ownership. If the government swooped in with its Black Helicopters to take them, I would be by your side helping in the resistance. We have the right to bear arms...but. We do not have the right to be irresponsible in bearing those arms. The either/or thinking of some gun enthusiasts and the NRA is infantile at best, but predominantly deadly.

Our most cherished right or freedom, what truly marks a nation as a Republic or democracy, is our First Amendment. If that one right alone is honored, there is true liberty in that country. Yet we have a number of restrictions on this fundamental cornerstone of freedom, that in no way interferes with the exercise and protection of this right. How does the Second Amendment compare to this bedrock of our nation? Should it also be subject to reasonable restrictions to avoid dangers to the common good and public safety and the unalienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If not, why not?

I gave my daughter a Teddy Bear when she was four years old. A year later the stores came out with a Teddy Bear that had sharp claws and teeth and was animated to act as if it were in the wild. I passed on that one. A single-shot musket is not an AR-15. How would the Second Amendment read today or even have a place in the Bill of Rights if the AR-15 was around at that time?

Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable.

However, the same SCOTUS everyone on the Right now hates and objects to their decisions, will immediately and hypocritically turn to the SCOTUS decision on guns. Curious. The Right admits and insists that SCOTUS has been wrong on a number of issues and wants to end their existence, yet on instruments of violence find them an impeccable source. Which is it? Agreeing with you makes them wise and disagreeing means they should be ousted? Grow up!

First and foremost, I am not against private gun o... (show quote)

The only way you will get their guns is out of their cold dead hands. Don't bother citing the second amendment--it doesn't matter....

MsCentralia

PeterS wrote:

The only way you will get their guns is out of their cold dead hands. Don't bother citing the second amendment--it doesn't matter....

I do not want their guns; I just would like a little sanity about the sale and distribution of guns. Why do they resist this?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

MsCentralia wrote:

First and foremost, I am not against private gun ownership. If the government swooped in with its Black Helicopters to take them, I would be by your side helping in the resistance. We have the right to bear arms...but. We do not have the right to be irresponsible in bearing those arms. The either/or thinking of some gun enthusiasts and the NRA is infantile at best, but predominantly deadly.

Our most cherished right or freedom, what truly marks a nation as a Republic or democracy, is our First Amendment. If that one right alone is honored, there is true liberty in that country. Yet we have a number of restrictions on this fundamental cornerstone of freedom, that in no way interferes with the exercise and protection of this right. How does the Second Amendment compare to this bedrock of our nation? Should it also be subject to reasonable restrictions to avoid dangers to the common good and public safety and the unalienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If not, why not?

I gave my daughter a Teddy Bear when she was four years old. A year later the stores came out with a Teddy Bear that had sharp claws and teeth and was animated to act as if it were in the wild. I passed on that one. A single-shot musket is not an AR-15. How would the Second Amendment read today or even have a place in the Bill of Rights if the AR-15 was around at that time?

Parsing the Second Amendment correctly, gun ownership is restricted. Very restricted. You MUST be a part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The government cannot infringe upon that militia or you as a member from keeping and bearing arms. Being part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is absolutely necessary, essential, to the right of bearing arms. No well-regulated militia to join, no right to bear arms. Simple--and inarguable.

However, the same SCOTUS everyone on the Right now hates and objects to their decisions, will immediately and hypocritically turn to the SCOTUS decision on guns. Curious. The Right admits and insists that SCOTUS has been wrong on a number of issues and wants to end their existence, yet on instruments of violence find them an impeccable source. Which is it? Agreeing with you makes them wise and disagreeing means they should be ousted? Grow up!

First and foremost, I am not against private gun o... (show quote)

BOHICA

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Hi Blade! I echo your comment!

Blade_Runner wrote:

BOHICA