[quote=rumitoid]It is to my deep regret, seriously, that responding to you is a waste of time. I thought far better of you, actually counted on you to make a good and logical argument that might change my mind on a topic. Now you are like the rest: insult over facts.
I do not "make claims about President Trump with nothing but innuendo supplied by left wing pundits as your evidence." Unless the entire media is considered to be left wing pundits as well as Trump's tweets. It is not "fake news" when Trump himself is the source of verifiable complaint.
"Oh, yes, a bit off the subject, but you recently authored a post claiming a book proved there is no individual right to bear arms and we are still waiting for the name of the book." Open your ears for a change, oh, and your eyes. Patrick J. Charles doesn’t keep readers in suspense as to his interpretation. In his introduction to Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial Militias to Concealed Carry, Mr. Charles states: “the Second Amendment was neither legally intended nor legally understood by the Founding Fathers as protecting a right to armed individual self-defense.”
o there you have it – if you buy into Charles’s detailed exegesis. Charles, a historian and legal scholar, spent almost 10 years digging deeply into the issue of gun rights. And he has written a credible record of what he learned, which led to his conclusions.
“Armed in America” painstakingly presents the historic context for the Second Amendment, which Charles says is necessary to understand its meaning. He includes a discussion of Article VII of the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, a “precursor" to the Second Amendment that “was intimately tied to Parliament’s powers over arming and arraying of the militia.”
Charles asserts, “To the Founding Fathers, a well-regulated militia indicated something far more specific... than an armed citizenry. [It] united the people in defense of their rights, liberties, and property .... as a common community.” Then he identifies the origins for what he views as misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. He says that “[i]n the 1840s, compulsory militia service gave way to volunteer militia companies...” At this point, “the right to arms was no longer seen as being indispensably intertwined with military service ... [but] gradually degenerated into a mere armed citizenry model – that is a right of law-abiding citizens to have and to keep arms.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2018/0126/Armed-in-America-asks-exactly-what-the-Founding-Fathers-intended-with-the-Second-Amendment[/quote]
Preamble)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)
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.
What part of " the people " do you not understand?
Not a question.......simpleton.
all that drivel.....for nothing.