Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[autigeremt 6,609]

Being very good at what they do doesn't constitute a ban, per se. I stand by my plan as a way to give both sides fair and equal treatment, but this debate will not end with or without a ban or more restrictions.

[Weegle777 78]

This government knows that if they were to mobilize police, Feds, and any other law enforcement to confiscate weapons, that they would be putting those agents' lives in danger and a bloodbath would ensue. Families, police, would be gunned down in crazy firefights across this country. The Feds aren't that stupid.

You're right on target Weegs. Furthermore, how many of those enforcement officers would turn on the government? The real danger is when they have enough people who will never question orders and never consider their own personal values. I sincerely doubt we ever see that though. The best plan would be to divide us, to create a division with a viral hate. We are just dumb enough to throw away our liberty if we believed we were saving it. I don't believe they are coming for our guns but I do believe we are being led somewhere and so far, I don't like it.

I agree. If their motive was to disarm the citizens, it would be much more subtle.

[AUDub 11,147]

Being very good at what they do doesn't constitute a ban, per se. I stand by my plan as a way to give both sides fair and equal treatment, but this debate will not end with or without a ban or more restrictions.

Maybe not, but I do think it does warrant some extra restrictions. Personally, I'd be satisfied with reinstating the limit on the magazines and cursory mental health evaluations on purchasers. Again, your reasonable proposal from a few weeks back would also be satisfactory to me.

[AUGradinTX 0]

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

The idea that we should arm ourselves as citizens to act as a counterbalance to the military power of our government(s) (local police force, county sheriff's Dept., State National Guard, US Army, etc.) is shear fantasy.

Occasionally, this fantasy is actually played out by some demented person, which is why SWAT teams were formed.

Regardless, if you seriously buy into that fantasy, you are just as demented.

Wow. Where in the world did you come up with that? That is so far from the truth I would like to know where you got it from, please. Considering the source, I'm assuming (until you respond) that you just made that up. Again.

You are right that they didn't want standing army. The reason, though, is because they were skeptical of concentrated federal power and an army to exercise that power on its behalf.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I'm waiting...

[Weegle777 78]

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

The idea that we should arm ourselves as citizens to act as a counterbalance to the military power of our government(s) (local police force, county sheriff's Dept., State National Guard, US Army, etc.) is shear fantasy.

Occasionally, this fantasy is actually played out by some demented person, which is why SWAT teams were formed.

Regardless, if you seriously buy into that fantasy, you are just as demented.

Wow. Where in the world did you come up with that? That is so far from the truth I would like to know where you got it from, please. Considering the source, I'm assuming (until you respond) that you just made that up. Again.

You are right that they didn't want standing army. The reason, though, is because they were skeptical of concentrated federal power and an army to exercise that power on its behalf.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I'm waiting...

He's googling it. Give him time.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

The idea that we should arm ourselves as citizens to act as a counterbalance to the military power of our government(s) (local police force, county sheriff's Dept., State National Guard, US Army, etc.) is shear fantasy.

Occasionally, this fantasy is actually played out by some demented person, which is why SWAT teams were formed.

Regardless, if you seriously buy into that fantasy, you are just as demented.

Wow. Where in the world did you come up with that? That is so far from the truth I would like to know where you got it from, please. Considering the source, I'm assuming (until you respond) that you just made that up. Again.

You are right that they didn't want standing army. The reason, though, is because they were skeptical of concentrated federal power and an army to exercise that power on its behalf.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I'm waiting...

If you form a group of more than ten people with the word militia in their formal name, I think you will hear from the government.

[AUGradinTX 0]

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

The idea that we should arm ourselves as citizens to act as a counterbalance to the military power of our government(s) (local police force, county sheriff's Dept., State National Guard, US Army, etc.) is shear fantasy.

Occasionally, this fantasy is actually played out by some demented person, which is why SWAT teams were formed.

Regardless, if you seriously buy into that fantasy, you are just as demented.

Wow. Where in the world did you come up with that? That is so far from the truth I would like to know where you got it from, please. Considering the source, I'm assuming (until you respond) that you just made that up. Again.

You are right that they didn't want standing army. The reason, though, is because they were skeptical of concentrated federal power and an army to exercise that power on its behalf.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I'm waiting...

He's googling it. Give him time.

lol

[alexava 6,973]

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

The idea that we should arm ourselves as citizens to act as a counterbalance to the military power of our government(s) (local police force, county sheriff's Dept., State National Guard, US Army, etc.) is shear fantasy.

Occasionally, this fantasy is actually played out by some demented person, which is why SWAT teams were formed.

Regardless, if you seriously buy into that fantasy, you are just as demented.

Wow. Where in the world did you come up with that? That is so far from the truth I would like to know where you got it from, please. Considering the source, I'm assuming (until you respond) that you just made that up. Again.

You are right that they didn't want standing army. The reason, though, is because they were skeptical of concentrated federal power and an army to exercise that power on its behalf.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I'm waiting...

If you form a group of more than ten people with the word militia in their formal name, I think you will hear from the government.

[homersapien 11,371]

OK, I'll play.

If I stipulate the intention of the writers of the second amendment was to provide a counterbalance (defense) against our own government (which it clearly does not actually state) then please explain why so many categories of military weapons have been prohibited and/or highly regulated?

It seems quite obvious the courts - who are ultimately responsible for interpreting the constitution - have never taken the position that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government.

Such an interpretation would necessarily require that civilians have access to whatever sort of weaponry necessary to make such resistance feasible, including heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, missiles, etc) and aircraft, as well as the organization (army) to employ such weaponry effectively.

Such "private" armies would, of course, be antithetical to the peace and stability of the country.

So, either the second amendment is open to a different interpretation - one that is based on the words only - or it is a totally archaic article that no longer has any base in reality and should therefore, be amended. Either solution works for me.

But if you must insist on using a "people vs. their government" interpretation of the second amendment, please explain exactly how that's going to work in this era. Propose a scenario in which you (and perhaps a few fellow wackos) are going to defeat the combined military resources of your local, state and federal governments.

Like I said, this position is pure fantasy.

[telling tiger 156]

OK, I'll play.

If I stipulate the intention of the writers of the second amendment was to provide a counterbalance (defense) against our own government (which it clearly does not actually state) then please explain why so many categories of military weapons have been prohibited and/or highly regulated?

It seems quite obvious the courts - who are ultimately responsible for interpreting the constitution - have never taken the position that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government.

Such an interpretation would necessarily require that civilians have access to whatever sort of weaponry necessary to make such resistance feasible, including heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, missiles, etc) and aircraft, as well as the organization (army) to employ such weaponry effectively.

Such "private" armies would, of course, would be antithetical to the peace and stability of the country.

So, either the second amendment is open to a different interpretation - one that is based on the words only - or it is a totally archaic article that no longer has any base in reality and should therefore, be repealed. Either solution works for me.

But if you must insist on using a "people vs. their government" interpretation of the second amendment, please explain exactly how that's going to work. Propose a scenario in which you (and perhaps a few fellow wackos) are going to defeat the combined military resources of your local, state and federal governments.

Like I said, this position is pure fantasy.

Extremely well stated. Nailed down, spot on.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

OK, I'll play.

If I stipulate the intention of the writers of the second amendment was to provide a counterbalance (defense) against our own government (which it clearly does not actually state) then please explain why so many categories of military weapons have been prohibited and/or highly regulated?

It seems quite obvious the courts - who are ultimately responsible for interpreting the constitution - have never taken the position that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government.

Such an interpretation would necessarily require that civilians have access to whatever sort of weaponry necessary to make such resistance feasible, including heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, missiles, etc) and aircraft, as well as the organization (army) to employ such weaponry effectively.

Such "private" armies would, of course, would be antithetical to the peace and stability of the country.

So, either the second amendment is open to a different interpretation - one that is based on the words only - or it is a totally archaic article that no longer has any base in reality and should therefore, be repealed. Either solution works for me.

But if you must insist on using a "people vs. their government" interpretation of the second amendment, please explain exactly how that's going to work. Propose a scenario in which you (and perhaps a few fellow wackos) are going to defeat the combined military resources of your local, state and federal governments.

Like I said, this position is pure fantasy.

Answer me one question: why do you continue to ignore the actual words & writings of the founders in your insistence that the 2nd amendment has absolulely nothing to do with opposing tyrannical governmental power? I mean, English is my native language and I read & understand it better than any other:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"^[83][84] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.^[84][85]

[AUGradinTX 0]

OK, I'll play.

If I stipulate the intention of the writers of the second amendment was to provide a counterbalance (defense) against our own government (which it clearly does not actually state) then please explain why so many categories of military weapons have been prohibited and/or highly regulated?

It seems quite obvious the courts - who are ultimately responsible for interpreting the constitution - have never taken the position that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government.

Such an interpretation would necessarily require that civilians have access to whatever sort of weaponry necessary to make such resistance feasible, including heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, missiles, etc) and aircraft, as well as the organization (army) to employ such weaponry effectively.

Such "private" armies would, of course, would be antithetical to the peace and stability of the country.

So, either the second amendment is open to a different interpretation - one that is based on the words only - or it is a totally archaic article that no longer has any base in reality and should therefore, be repealed. Either solution works for me.

But if you must insist on using a "people vs. their government" interpretation of the second amendment, please explain exactly how that's going to work. Propose a scenario in which you (and perhaps a few fellow wackos) are going to defeat the combined military resources of your local, state and federal governments.

Like I said, this position is pure fantasy.

"Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence." -GOULD, 9th Circuit Judge (2009)

http://rense.com/general85/secondam.htm

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

I guess you know better than Judge Gould and Thomas Jefferson...

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

Still waiting on where you got this from...

[Weegle777 78]

OK, I'll play.

If I stipulate the intention of the writers of the second amendment was to provide a counterbalance (defense) against our own government (which it clearly does not actually state) then please explain why so many categories of military weapons have been prohibited and/or highly regulated?

It seems quite obvious the courts - who are ultimately responsible for interpreting the constitution - have never taken the position that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government.

Such an interpretation would necessarily require that civilians have access to whatever sort of weaponry necessary to make such resistance feasible, including heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, missiles, etc) and aircraft, as well as the organization (army) to employ such weaponry effectively.

Such "private" armies would, of course, would be antithetical to the peace and stability of the country.

So, either the second amendment is open to a different interpretation - one that is based on the words only - or it is a totally archaic article that no longer has any base in reality and should therefore, be repealed. Either solution works for me.

But if you must insist on using a "people vs. their government" interpretation of the second amendment, please explain exactly how that's going to work. Propose a scenario in which you (and perhaps a few fellow wackos) are going to defeat the combined military resources of your local, state and federal governments.

Like I said, this position is pure fantasy.

"Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence." -GOULD, 9th Circuit Judge (2009)

http://rense.com/general85/secondam.htm

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

I guess you know better than Judge Gould and Thomas Jefferson...

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

Still waiting on where you got this from...

He's probably using Bing this time to find his answer.

[AUGradinTX 0]

He's probably using Bing this time to find his answer.

or maybe asking Siri.

[Weegle777 78]

He's probably using Bing this time to find his answer.

or maybe asking Siri.

[homersapien 11,371]

Answer me one question: why do you continue to ignore the actual words & writings of the founders in your insistence that the 2nd amendment has absolulely nothing to do with opposing tyrannical governmental power? I mean, English is my native language and I read & understand it better than any other:

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"^[83][84] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.^[84][85]

First I will say the ultimate reference on the Constitution is the document itself. The language in the document is very sparse, which lends itself to interpretation. Just like today, I am sure that were many interpretations of exactly that the words meant.

Secondly, I don't ignore interpretations of the amendment that insist the basis of the second amendment was to protect us from our own government. Considering the political and technical realities of the late 18th century, I can even see some justification for their views. However, considering the disdain that many of the writers had for standing armies, an interpretation such as mine could easily be proposed and justified, even for that time.

But considering the political and technical realities of today, the amendment has clearly lost any relevance regarding protecting ourselves from our own government. Like it or not, such relevance was lost at least as early as the Civil War. Note the part I highlighted from the above quote, which is clearly not true today.

In other words, if the second amendment is truly about protecting ourselves from our own government, it is obsolete (no longer relevant) and needs to be amended to reflect personal protection only.

It's not like there weren't any other mistakes in the original document.

[homersapien 11,371]

OK, I'll play.

If I stipulate the intention of the writers of the second amendment was to provide a counterbalance (defense) against our own government (which it clearly does not actually state) then please explain why so many categories of military weapons have been prohibited and/or highly regulated?

It seems quite obvious the courts - who are ultimately responsible for interpreting the constitution - have never taken the position that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government.

Such an interpretation would necessarily require that civilians have access to whatever sort of weaponry necessary to make such resistance feasible, including heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, missiles, etc) and aircraft, as well as the organization (army) to employ such weaponry effectively.

Such "private" armies would, of course, would be antithetical to the peace and stability of the country.

So, either the second amendment is open to a different interpretation - one that is based on the words only - or it is a totally archaic article that no longer has any base in reality and should therefore, be repealed. Either solution works for me.

But if you must insist on using a "people vs. their government" interpretation of the second amendment, please explain exactly how that's going to work. Propose a scenario in which you (and perhaps a few fellow wackos) are going to defeat the combined military resources of your local, state and federal governments.

Like I said, this position is pure fantasy.

"Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence." -GOULD, 9th Circuit Judge (2009)

http://rense.com/gen...85/secondam.htm

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

I guess you know better than Judge Gould and Thomas Jefferson...

Actually I think I might. Gould is flat out wrong IMO.

Thomas Jefferson died in the 18 century, but if were alive today, he would agree with me. He was one of the nations first liberals, in spite of the slavery thing. (See how things change?)

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was (mainly) to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

Still waiting on where you got this from...

I wrote it.

I "got" it from reading various sources, including some from the original signers, that discussed their opposition to a standing army. Without a standing army, the most important reason for having the second amendment was to provide for a militia that could be mustered for defense of the country (meaning government) from threats both external and internal.

However, to be clear, I acknowledge that many of these same sources also cite the "opposition to a tyrannical government (itself)" rational and I was in error to suggest it played no part.

In hindsight I should have added the word "mainly" where I just inserted it. But even then, I doubt I could prove national defense was primary to "defense of the national", at least not without more research than I am willing to do. It just seems obvious to me that that would make sense. After all, in the absence of any national military, what would worry you more, the government itself or external and internal threats to the government?

My larger point is the "opposition to the government" rational was obsoleted long ago.

[homersapien 11,371]

P.S.: You left out a part of Judge Gould's ruling:

All weapons are not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment.

How do you reconcile that with the "oppose government" theory of the amendment?

[jj3jordan 2,052]

I plan on being ready because nothing is beyond the realm of possibilities with Obama. You can't "know" something will never happen. I believe that IS where Obama wants to go.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I plan on being ready because nothing is beyond the realm of possibilities with Obama. You can't "know" something will never happen. I believe that IS where Obama wants to go.

He's a dyed in the wool radical, and the pin head GOP " leaders " refuse to acknowledge that fact. Too afraid of the MSM painting them as "RACISTS", or simply too use to the creature comforts of being in power, they ignore the reality of what is at hand.

[homersapien 11,371]

I plan on being ready because nothing is beyond the realm of possibilities with Obama. You can't "know" something will never happen. I believe that IS where Obama wants to go.

Exactly. He's recruiting a secret negro army even as we speak.

[alexava 6,973]

I plan on being ready because nothing is beyond the realm of possibilities with Obama. You can't "know" something will never happen. I believe that IS where Obama wants to go.

Exactly. He's recruiting a secret negro army even as we speak.

we kid but some people believe this crap.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

Answer me one question: why do you continue to ignore the actual words & writings of the founders in your insistence that the 2nd amendment has absolulely nothing to do with opposing tyrannical governmental power? I mean, English is my native language and I read & understand it better than any other:

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"^[83][84] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.^[84][85]

First I will say the ultimate reference on the Constitution is the document itself. The language in the document is very sparse, which lends itself to interpretation. Just like today, I am sure that were many interpretations of exactly that the words meant.

Secondly, I don't ignore interpretations of the amendment that insist the basis of the second amendment was to protect us from our own government. Considering the political and technical realities of the late 18th century, I can even see some justification for their views. However, considering the disdain that many of the writers had for standing armies, an interpretation such as mine could easily be proposed and justified, even for that time.

But considering the political and technical realities of today, the amendment has clearly lost any relevance regarding protecting ourselves from our own government. Like it or not, such relevance was lost at least as early as the Civil War. Note the part I highlighted from the above quote, which is clearly not true today.

In other words, if the second amendment is truly about protecting ourselves from our own government, it is obsolete (no longer relevant) and needs to be amended to reflect personal protection only.

It's not like there weren't any other mistakes in the original document.

In all that you wrote, you didn't bother to answer the one question I had posed to you. I didn't ask for your nonsensical interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I asked why you refuse to acknowledge the writings of some framers & founders who wrote about tyrannical government being opposed by an armed citizenry.

[telling tiger 156]

Ok congratulations, they wrote it. Happy now? All you offer is other interpretations of what was written. Were you there? No, didn't think so. So all you CAN offer is a differing intrepretation. So you are the only insightful one that can know? Yeah, no definitely not.

Why do you refuse to discuss how impotent it is in the face of modern warfare? Congrats, you may or may not have an automatic weapon. Don't forget the slingshot you may need it too. It would be just about as effective in the face of that thar gubmint tyranny,

Raptor and jordan, bwahahahahahah, bless your little hearts.

I can in fact look into the future and tell you what will never happen.

The politics of anger has worked so well for some in the recent past, I urge you to continue.

I cannot wait to see the meltdown of hyper conservative southern males when Hilliary seeks the nomination again.

[homersapien 11,371]

In all that you wrote, you didn't bother to answer the one question I had posed to you. I didn't ask for your nonsensical interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I asked why you refuse to acknowledge the writings of some framers & founders who wrote about tyrannical government being opposed by an armed citizenry.

Please see post 117.

Now please point out exactly where I made "nonsensical interpretations" of the second amendment.

I would also be interested in your reaction to anything else in "all I wrote". After all, that's why we are here, isn't it?