Another one who doesn't know a damn thing about history.

Militas were indeed state run & organized armies when the Bill of Rights was written. The Bill of Rights grants the STATES the right to arm SPECIFICALLY so that they could resist the government should it become tyrannical.

No other reason.

The funny thing is, it makes PERFECT sense if it is intended to cover the people's army. Then you can debate whether that refers to something official or unofficial.

No that would be me

The first (meaning, most commonly-meant) meaning of "militia" according to the Merriam-Webster.com site is: "1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency." So, it refers to, for example, The National Guard or Army Reserves, for example. Yes, M-W does include the other definitions you LIKE, but this remains the primary one.

Oh, well you two need to talk.

No the funny thing is that you are trying to say something makes sense if it's intended to do something. A sentence that makes sense would make sense.

I was speaking more about grammar than I was intent anyway....

Many of the Bill of Rights are there to make what the British forces were doing illegal. They were, in part, a politcal maneuvre to held justify the war of independence. As such, not all of them are about individual rights, and all are about what the government can and cannot do.

The 2nd Amendment's purpose, in context, should be clear. It made it legal for the states to organize militias, so any tyrannical power, be it the British Empire or the Federal Government, could be challenged. Weapons as a political tool against political powers. What the hell does it have to do with carring a handgun to protect yourself from fellow citizens? Or, say, to carry an assault rifle to murder fellow citizens...

Funny how you read all of that into this:

The insanity in your argument is amazing ---

taking words written over 200 hundred years ago and trying to equate them with the situation today is quite amusing.

I'm sure the framers had the Illinios National Guard in mind at the time of the writing. No wait -- they had the Reserves in mind... that's right.

Give be a break!

Coming from you, that's fucking hilarious. Then again, what isn't?

Hmmm -- that's funny....

Its called context. Necessary for understanding most things. Ever hear of the holism of language and meaning?

Typo. I meant to say "US born and raised". Notice how the quoted text makes a lot more sense if you fix the typo. Sorry about that.

unified wholes are greater than the sum of their parts -- blah blah blah.

If your arguements are that the text was written to give a right to bear arms to citizens that oppose a tyrannical government -- the argument could be made that citizens that think the US government is tyrannical and want to change it have the right to own arms.

There is more to linguistic holism than that. What I mean is that language doesn't have the same meaning, or sometimes any, if you take it out of context. Especially archaic language needs to be read with an understanding of the background it was written in.

I can see your point... I do think that if someone has a gun to oppose a tyrranical government, they probably have the right to it (according to the 2nd amendment). However, most people do not have guns for that primary reason-- at most, they add that on as an excuse to get by the 2nd amendment. Most people have guns to do violence to individuals, or to threaten violence to individuals. Those people don't have a constitutional right to their guns.

Most people that have guns do violence to individuals or to threated violence???

Post a link that backs that up. A small percentage of the people (i.e. criminals) own guns to perpetrate violence -- but they get all the press.

(could that be due to gun ownership laws and the fact that you can buy a gun illegally on almost any street corner)

No those people shouldn't (although they do) have rights to guns... but law abiding citizens do.

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth.... you have to read the context, but militias are now defined as the National Guard or the Army Reserves.

Give me a break!

All the criminals would have to do at that point is call themselves a militia...

I'll gladly trade my guns in as long as i never have to pay income tax again. but since that isnt likely to happen, I'll just hang on to them. And i have quite an impressive arsenal, all stored in a vault that would be damn near impossible to crack into.

The gun-haters can lick my ass. I served this country for 7 years, i bought my guns legaly and I'm proud to have my collection.

Originally posted by Just the Village Idiot

Most people that have guns do violence to individuals or to threated violence???

Post a link that backs that up. A small percentage of the people (i.e. criminals) own guns to perpetrate violence -- but they get all the press.

What exactly is a handgun, semi-automatic, etc. for? Its purpose is to do violence, and the alternative use is to have it as a threat of violence. What is a gun for, except shooting, or letting people know you can shoot them? Doesn't make toast.

Yes, many guns are for hunting... but the kinds of gun are sincerely different. You don't need a handgun, or an assault rifle to kill a deer. An uzi sucks for killing a thanksgiving turkey.


(could that be due to gun ownership laws and the fact that you can buy a gun illegally on almost any street corner)

No those people shouldn't (although they do) have rights to guns... but law abiding citizens do.

The right to use them can be differentiated. Until a gun is used to kill, how can you tell who has the right and who doesn't? The basic fact is that guns are for killing. Why have to tool if you don't want to do the deed?

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth.... you have to read the context, but militias are now defined as the National Guard or the Army Reserves.

Give me a break!


Where did I redefine "militia"?

All the criminals would have to do at that point is call themselves a militia...


No. Because I don't become a Zebra because I claim to be one. It isn't what I call myself, but what I am determined by the judicial system to be, that the law applies to. A court, the only body that can interpret the constitution, can decide if someone is part of a militia. That is exactly what the constitution expects.

"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."


The statement is ambiguous at best. Since it is among the Bill of Rights any ambiguity should favor the right of the people. Thus "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." should be applicable and should remain so until the Congress is willing to amend or append the Second Amendment. As for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, I am of the opinion that it makes controversial rulings for the purpose of having the Federal Supreme Court provide clairification and not because they are a fringe court, with liberal or conservative leanings. My :2 cents:

"What exactly is a handgun, semi-automatic, etc. for? Its purpose is to do violence, and the alternative use is to have it as a threat of violence. What is a gun for, except shooting, or letting people know you can shoot them? Doesn't make toast.

Yes, many guns are for hunting... but the kinds of gun are sincerely different. You don't need a handgun, or an assault rifle to kill a deer. An uzi sucks for killing a thanksgiving turkey."

Why are we talking about guns when I have the right to bear arms??? That would include nukes.... why not bitch about that???

Guns are for killing??? Thanks genious.... I thought they were for playing patty cake.


"The right to use them can be differentiated. Until a gun is used to kill, how can you tell who has the right and who doesn't? The basic fact is that guns are for killing. Why have to tool if you don't want to do the deed?"

I can tell by the second ammendment.

We already established the fact that guns are for killing....

Oh trust me I'm ready to do the deed.... if threatened and defending myself, my family, or my property.

"Where did I redefine "militia"?"

You didn't and I didn't explicity refer to you.

"No. Because I don't become a Zebra because I claim to be one. It isn't what I call myself, but what I am determined by the judicial system to be, that the law applies to. A court, the only body that can interpret the constitution, can decide if someone is part of a militia. That is exactly what the constitution expects."

Ah the good old judicial system.... maybe they should stop trying to regulate from the bench and do their jobs.

They are biased and the very definition of militia goes to organizations created by private citizens,

You could easily call the people in Waco a militia... what happened to them???

Government of the people, by the people, for the people.... what a fucking joke...

The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution. It is not necessary to wait for congress to make further ammendments. Also, who says how ambiguity should be treated? You seem to take it for granted that "the people" (the ones who want guns) should get the trump, but again I point you to the powers of the Supreme Court.

By the way I would not peacefully give up my guns which I currently legally own. Any attempt to disarm this law abiding citizen would quickly change that status.

I understand that the Federal Supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution, and I will further point out that "the people" have had the right to have arms since the very beginning of our government which to me speaks volumns about the Sumpreme Court and its interpretation of the constitution and the meaning of the Second Admendment.

And yes I believe as I stated, since the Second Admendment is listed among the Bill of Rights, which is about the rights of the people, the ambiguity should favor the rights of the people.

Interesting theory. So, you think they make certain plausible rulings so that the Supreme Court will be forced to rule on ambiguous constitutional issues that they might not otherwise ever take on? It is possible, I guess.

I really don't care what guys 200 years ago had to say about it. Trust me would you want our industry to be governed by what that bunch would have thought of porn? They thought all sorts of stupid things were a good idea.

I don't own a gun to overthrow the government, I own a gun because it is a tool. You own a hammer if you might need to drive some nails, you own a gun in case you need to kill someone. You don't shoot guns out of hands, you don't wing them, you don't try and scare them. You try to make a hole in the center of their torso, then at the bridge of their nose. You only use it if you intend to use deadly force and understand the consequences- PERIOD. That doesn't mean I WILL- just that I have the capacity. I am a very small women, almost any grown man could kill me very easily with his bare hands- that doesn't mean he will just that he has the capacity. If he has that capacity why should the government keep me from having the same? Particularly given my age and gender I am far, far more likely to show restraint with the use of deadly force.

I don't give a rats ass about a militia, I have the right to maintain the capacity for self defense with the tool statistically most suited for the job. There are two things that will keep you alive if someone really wants to harm you- fear, and a gun. If your afraid your careful, if your careful chances are you will never need the gun.

They were a bunch of amoral businessmen, so greedy they bought human beings from across the ocean and worked them to death, breaking up their families, and doing whatever it took to break their spirits. Except for the ones they wanted to fuck, of course.

Before we get too teary-eyed over them, let's not forget what slavery did to the labor market of WHITE people, too. It's hard to land a low-end job when there is a whole class of people doing that work who aren't even paid!

Pardon me, but I'm not going to look up to those guys for guidance.

LMAO!!!


Only UW would try to bring slavery into a discussion about the right to own guns...

ACtually it doesnt, its quite effective for killing turkeys, it's a gun, it shoots a bullet, seeing as you cant buy it full auto the only thing that differenciates it from a hunting gun is it's looks.. the same with every other "assault rifle"

I love morons who think if you put a pistol grip on something it shoots faster and more powerful bullets... stupid people fucking rock.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=right

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=people

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=keep

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bear

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arms

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shall

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=not

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infringed

Whats so fucking confusing?

Uh ... while I agree with your sentiments about the 2nd Ammendment, this is dead wrong. The 2nd Ammendment was written in the 1790s ... the Revolution was over, the war had been won, and the British had nothing to do with this discussion. It was the fear of federalism that caused this and the other ammendments included in the Bill of Rights to be enacted.

I suppose these are the same sort of people who wear team shirts or Air Jordan shoes when they aren't athletes, who drive cars with spoilers on the rear that are totally non-functional at any speed the car can actually go. The same people who wear baggy pants low or baseball hats backward because their friends or their music idols do. The same people who want a pit bull or rottweiler because they don't feel tough without one. (Come to think of it, I suppose a lot of weapon owners fall into a similar category.)

once again the 9th circuit has demonstrated that it is totally out of touch with how the nation lives in todays reality

What the fuck are you babbling about? Your statement above is weak, that is, if we were even talking about slavery!

Guns, guns, guns. This thread is about guns!

What in the fuck...? Go hug a tree.. Your one of those pacifists arent ya... if you come home to your wife getting raped you'd run down the stairs crying and go hide in the closet until the mean guy goes away.. right?

(heres where UnseenWorld replies "no I'd kick his ass")

Great idea but.. Wrong.. he's got an illegal gun.. your now dead.

(heres where UnseenWorld replies "oh yeah.. whats the chance of that")

Not much, but is it impossible... far from it.. in the end, you'd be dead, I'd be prepared and have a confirmed kill.

Enjoy your life as nothing more then a helpless target shithead.

What in the fuck...? Go hug a a gun. Your one of those gun lovers arent ya... if you come home to your kid shot in the head from playing with a gun (maybe not your gun, but one the idiot neighbor left laying around) you'd run down the stairs crying "It was worth it to protect the 2nd Amendment!"

(heres where Evil1 replies "no I'd kick myself for putting off sending him to that safe gun handling class")

Great idea but your kid is now dead.

(heres where Evil1 replies "oh yeah...what was the chance of that?")

Not much, but is it impossible?... far from it.. in the end, he'd be dead while mine would be alive.

Enjoy your life as nothing more then a shithead and a helpless target of superior reasoning.

Okay, parody aside, your argument is that it's possible I might need a gun and then, idiot that I am, I won't have one. Well, I might need a bilge pump, too, but I don't have one. Do you? And then the situation arises where your basement is flooded (or your bilge) and you are up a well-known tributary with no mode of locomotion.

Quite frankly, you probably MIGHT need lots of life saving things even more than a gun, but I bet you don't have them. More people are killed by heart attacks each year than by criminals with guns, but I bet you don't have a home defibrilator, do you? Anaphylactic shock from bee stings or spider bites, food allergies, and so forth also kill more people than criminals with guns, but I bet you aren't prepared for that eventuality, either. Still, by golly, you've got your gun and if that criminal shows up, THAT is the situation it's most important to be ready for.

Why?

Bees are necessary to nature. I like bees. Criminals are not necessary. I don't like criminals. That is why. :)

Yep, thats what they did years ago when they upheld your right to be a smut peddler too lol

Cute, but a child killed by a be or a peanut is just as dead as one killed by a criminal.

To all the right-wing nuts bitching about the mean liberals... YOU'RE FUCKING PORN PEDDLERS! If you don't like all the stinky liberals where you are, try living someplace conservative. I'd love to see your faces going to jail for violating obscenity laws.