Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder (and I'm not the person who thought of this) How can a party like the GOP be called "pro life" when they're not for health, education and welfare for that child once it's born, and if that child reaches adult status and commits the worst crime they want to kill it?
Originally Posted By 182 =This is Donny= How can theDEM'SS say they are "pro choice". They want to take away my whether I have health care or not,my choice to carry a firearm and the the right for a pastor to tell his flock his choice in President. I think both DEMS and REPS are a little grey
Originally Posted By DyGDisney What the republicans FAIL TO UNDERSTAND is this... Your lack of health insurance does NOT mean you will never, in your life, seek medical treatment. If it did, then I'm sure no one would care whether you hade medical insurance. When you seek medical treatment, without insurance, and can not afford to PAY for said medical treatment, who DOES pay for it? Those who have insurance pay for it with increases in premiums. WHY, DONNY, should we have to pay for the health treatment of those who choose not to have insurance? I mean, you don't believe in welfare, medicare or other government funded social services...correct? Why do I bother asking a question I know you will never answer....
Originally Posted By DyGDisney The second amendment procured, "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 legal definition of militia stands as thus: "A group of private citizens who train for military duty in order to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government."
Originally Posted By DyGDisney When the second amendment was written, the guns were rifles in which you had to load the bullets and gunpowder, one shot at a time. They were not semi-automatics, cop killers, or hand guns with a full magazine to be emptied one after another. People with guns DO kill people. The teen who took his grandpa's gun to school and killed 3 boys could NOT have killed those 3 had he not had access to a gun. Period. He may have killed one if he had a knife, but not all three. Drive by shootings could not occur without a gun, correct? Some states don't even have a waiting period to get a gun, and others give guns to people without requiring mental evaluations or even to people with criminal records. Yeah, democrats want to limit this...so sue us.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder You know what's amusing? Creating a sock puppet and then admitting it's you.
Originally Posted By mawnck BTW Donny, why are you now 182? And what's the significance of the number?
Originally Posted By 182 "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 right of the =people= to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Taking the second half of something and saying it means exactly the same thing as the entire statement is the very definition of taking something out of context.
Originally Posted By dshyates Well a suitcase nuke is considered "arms". Donny, would you have a problem with everyone in your neighborhood, at the mall, in the bars, and in your church have a suitcase nuke?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Ah yes, the Second Amendment, the most misunderstood and misused Amendment we have. The FRmaers most certainly did not intend for every stupid f- to arm themselves with a gun, but instead meant that there out to be a regulated group of armed men to defend their territory. However, over 230 years later, idiots, morons and jackasses cite to it as a way of justifying a shooting of an unarmed person, who in no way was trying to conquer the state of Florida.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <but instead meant that there out to be a regulated group of armed men to defend their territory.> Exactly. This idea that anybody should be able to arm himself to the teeth has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia" - or indeed a well regulated anything. And any time anyone tries to propose sensible regulations, the NRA cites the second amendment... conveniently leaving out the "well regulated" part.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Donny, what powers does the Constitution grant over the militia? The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in the context of a militia. Congress has the power to regulate and organize the militia. It has the power to federalize the militia - hence, the constitutional right of the government to draft individuals into military service. What is the militia? Every able boded male between 17 and 45. Congress has the power to establish training standards and to organize weapons ownership of every able bodied male between 17 and 45. Congress can say that every member of the militia must register their weapons and that they must complete annual training standards. Heck, Congress can federalize any group of organized armed citizens and bring them under federal government control in case of national emergency. The militia is supposed to be under state control until federalized, but the standards for the militia are established on a federal level. You have the right to bear arms in the context of being part of the nation's defensive force.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer From the Constitution From Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Article II Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (This shows that militias are under state control until federalized) Now, change "militia" to "every able-bodied male between 17 and 45" and you can see that the founders gave Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining" every able bodied male between 17 and 45.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "BTW Donny, why are you now 182? And what's the significance of the number?" It's a Mormon thing.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Now, change "militia" to "every able-bodied male between 17 and 45" and you can see that the founders gave Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining" every able bodied male between 17 and 45.>>> I don't know quite what to think about the original intent of the Second Amendment. But I do think your logic above is flawed. You claim that the 2nd Amendment gives Congress the right to provide for a federally-regulated militia. The big problem with this argument is the context in which the 2nd Amendment applies: the Bill of Rights. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments all define rights held by the people, and not powers granted to Congress. More specifically, they all define rights held by each person individually, and all are protections against an overbearing government that might want to restrict those rights. And the historical record of the Bill of Rights is clear: it was in reaction to founders' concerns about potential over-reaching power of the federal government as defined in the Constitution. Why would the framers throw in a power granted to Congress into the Bill of Rights? And against whom would the 2nd Amendment protect Congress's power in this area, that might want to prevent it from doing so? That argument just doesn't wash.
