AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

It would be advantageous for you to know that one of the definitions of m*****a is a "body of citizens" or "populace.

Please explain to us your use of the word "unregulated". Do you have any idea how many regulations and laws currently exist regulating guns? Might it not be a better idea to fully enforce the current laws? Hmm..maybe, YES!!!! Reducing the charge from "armed robbery" to "robbery" makes no sense. Please do let me provide you an example. The bastion of law and order, Baltimore, twice reduced armed robbery on an individual to robbery. Upon completing his second minim sentence, said individual promptly robbed a friend of ours home of every piece of electronics (NSA was not happy), money and trashed the place. When caught, he was in possession of a weapon. Again, no weapon related charge. Oh yeah, bring on some more laws.

Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson

rumitoid

Oldroy, My view of how the 2nd amendment is read does not in anyway mean that we the people have no right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers would have thought that absurd: guns were part of basic surviival during that period. But why stipulate very clearly a "well regulated m*****a" instead of all the people? Regulated means overseen and certain standards. The state or Federal government are the regulators of any m*****a. This right of the state or federal government shall not be infringed upon. This does not extend or is even implied to extend to individual gun-ownership.

Miss Brandi

Finally!! I have said several times that the FED needs to be abolished. The FED costs the U.S. enough every year, that if abolished, we could pay off the debt.
Start with http://www.scionofzion.com/federalreserve.htm
(damn)
or better yet, Google The Federal Reserve. And Hamilton was a t*****r, he supported the Fed, because his father-in-law wanted. And Jefferson fought a hard battle against Hamilton, and obviously, he lost.

rumitoid

Simple. You own a firearm. Are you a member of a WELL Regulated M*****A controlled by the the state or federal gpovernment? If not, then there are no infringements to complain about. End of story.

AnnMarie Loc: Madison, Wi

This subject brings to mind the words of Sandra Day O'Conner, when asked about seperation of church and state said the great American experiment WAS separation of church and state. "Why would we exchange a system (separation of church and state) that has served us so well for one that has served other countries so poorly"

mohadib

"It's truly amazing to adhere to an ideology that has failed every time it's been tried, and one that depends on deceit and force to implement".



That is one of the best descriptions of Religion ever posted.

AnnMarie Loc: Madison, Wi

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Not-a-RINO Loc: Michigan

That is taken out of context. I read that the Danbury Baptists wanted Thomas Jefferson to decide a church issue for them. Jefferson was wise enough to know that neither he nor anyone else in government has any business settling a church issue. That is simply not the purview of government at all. He referred the issue back to the elders of the church and the congregation.

The same man who has had his words "separation of church and state" taken out of context used to load federal buildings out to the various church groups to hold services in. This indicated he had at no time the same corrupt point of view to eradicate God from the public square as many liberal thinkers and atheists have pushed over the years.

If indeed there was NO separation of church and state, then your pastor/rabbi/priest could work as a mouthpiece for the government. Your pastor could have his sermons regulated by the government. You could possibly be required to join or be barred from joining a church of your choice. Jefferson was smart enough to realize if he did step in and make a ruling, we could wind up with a "Church of England" in America.

It should also be noted that our Framers were smart enough to not promote one sect over another. They were wise enough that if ANY citizen wanted to ask the blessings of the Almighty on our country, they certainly didn't want to be an impediment in any way.

For those who find this issue of interest, I highly recommend the book, The 5000 Year Leap which can be checked out that the local library or purchased from Amazon for a few dollars. You will gain a much better appreciation of the godly principles that guided our Founders in forming the greatest nation in history.

mohadib

I agree with your argument, but using facts and reasoning with certain posters is useless.

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

Well, considering that the m*****a at that time was the citizenry of the Nation and its States and there was no full-time standing military such as today, individual citizens were allowed to own guns in the event they were conscripted into the military to defend the Nation.

You also have to take into consideration that people were responsible for their own self-defense. Just like today, there were never enough law-enforcement officers around to protect all the people all the time. Have you not yet figured out that the slogan of most law-enforcement agencies "to serve and protect" is a farce like so much the government purports to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Why is it so hard for people like you to understand that there are those out there that have no faith in the government as a protector and also want to have as little do to with and from the government as possible?

mohadib

These are the same people who want government to control a womans right to choose concerning her body.They want gov. to dictate what you can do in the bedroom etc. etc.

The argument that they want the gov. out of our lives is ridiculous.

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

Wrong, as a citizen of the United States of America, and because I am male, I was required to sign up for Selective Service. At any point in time I can be called up for service, even to the point of drafting or conscripting, to fight for this country. That means that I should be ready at any time to be ready to fight for this country and I should also be armed and able to properly utilize the weapon of choice in the event the government, Federal, State or Local, calls me up. As the military may not be able to arm me, see the Russians conscripts during WWII, I should have a weapon of my own and be well trained, not necessarily by the government, to use it.

And yes, the probability of being conscripted or drafted is very low, but that does not mean it cannot happen.

Now that I have explained the part of a citizen soldier in inactive Reserve Status, let us move on to well-Regulated. What is meant by well-Regulated in your mind. Do we have to attend daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, etc, training sessions? Do we have to have rank? Do we have to call everyone sir or ma'am? Do we have to know how to parade?

Or, do we just have to be able to take orders and shoot well?

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

Nothing in my post said I wanted, or many people wanted, government out of our lives. I simply stated that I wanted, as many people do, as little government intrusion into my life as possible.

Intelligent people realize that there needs to be some form of government. The less intrusive the government is, the more freedom I have.

There is a big difference between wanting no government, anarchy, and little government.

Loki Loc: Georgia

There were fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Forty-nine were Protestant, mostly either Episcopalian or Presbyterian, two were Roman Catholic. Thomas Paine was a Deist. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were generally considered to have been "anti-clerical Christians," mostly accepting Christian Doctrine, but rejecting what they considered un-Biblical teachings, "organized religion," and ordained clergy. Jefferson rightly rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity as being unBiblical, because, well,... it is. Like a good bit of supposed Christianity, it is a creation or artifice of organized religion, usually the Catholic Church. At the time of the Founders, there was a great deal of religious disagreement between Catholic and Protestant, not to mention the internecine squabbles. They did not reject Christianity so much as they did it's man-made codicils of convenience which were almost always political in nature. Organized religion, or "big religion," is a great deal like big government that way. There are ulterior motives to much of their supposed altruism.