Interesting Demographic Opinions Of Heller


MP3Mogul

New member
Clicking the icon's revealed a few interesting comments:

There was one that stated why would someone want a handgun that can only hit a target from 10 feet or less!!!! LOL... these idiots are really misinformed!
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Let's look at the text of 2A and rebuke the antis:

"A well-regulated Militia, (composed of individuals not working for the government) being necessary to the security of a free State, (also composed of, you guessed it, individuals), the right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (do I really need to go into detail on this one?).
 

sailor

New member
tattedupboy - YES, you do! You can recite the 2A all day long, but those that don't like it will refuse to accept it! One person on the comments on the "CNN map" had the 2A so distorted, as to fit that persons pre-conceived notion. I sometimes dispair of this nation and it's lack of teaching basics any longer. The 2A is a single sentence; it uses basic English words; there are no Latin words or phrases included - yet judges, lawyers and the general public seem unable to read and comprehend the clearly stated meaning. Thank god that the five justices that upheld the Second Amendment on 6-26-2008 (a historic date!) DID understand the plain meaning of that one sentence. One part of that 2A sentence that seems to confuse: "... being necessary to a free state,..." is usually used as referring to a geographical/political state (New York, New Jersey, etc). Justice Scalia stated clearly in his opinion, and I have always held this view, that "a free state" is a state of being, regardless of where you may be, geographically - (a free state = a state of freedom). I would have to do a lot of re-reading to find the quote in his decision, but I was relieved to see him state it so clearly.
sailor
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Let's look at the text of 2A and rebuke the antis:

"A well-regulated Militia, (composed of individuals not working for the government) being necessary to the security of a free State
I actually interpret this a little differently...the Militia as being the military, but "well-regulated" meaning that the people keep them in check. If the first step to oppression of a people is the seizure of their weapons, then a military working among unarmed people could pretty much do as they please.

Unfortunately the idea of "citizens' militia" groups that train together doesn't seem to have really caught on that well.
 

sailor

New member
My view

"I actually interpret this a little differently...the Militia being the military, but 'well regulated' " ---- NO - not now, not then (when written), not ever. You should read some (or all!) of the Federalist Papers, leading up to the decisions on the formal, and accepted Bill of Rights. The whole point of a "Militia" was because of the fear of a standing army (The Military) - the whole of "the People" being armed (The Militia - the basic point behind the Second Amendment) was to be able to counter the possible tyranny of a standing army directed by the governing body (as was a problem in European countries in prior history - NOT to be repeated in the new United States of America). I am not a history scholar, but the information is out there, and unfortunately, not taught at all in our "Government" schools. The militia is not defunct, as a state operated defense force, in some states. The public sees and hears of "militia's" as an anti-government, unsanctioned, bunch of red necks (hate that term, but that is the public perception), out playing soldier in the boonies. That is unfortunate, as the militia idea is the very best of our national history (think of the "Minute Men"). Knowledge is power, and having it well and correctly understood, makes you able to counter those that would undermine our Rights. End of rant.
sailor
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
You should read some (or all!) of the Federalist Papers,
I have.

The whole point of a "Militia" was because of the fear of a standing army (The Military) - the whole of "the People" being armed (The Militia - the basic point behind the Second Amendment) was to be able to counter the possible tyranny of a standing army directed by the governing body (as was a problem in European countries in prior history - NOT to be repeated in the new United States of America).
That's what I just said. The only difference is that I said the 2A mentions the military as "militia" and says that it needs to be kept in check by the armed People. At the time, the militia was the military - there wasn't much of a distinction between the two. They didn't have massive organization and a MIC yet.

At the time, "militia" meant a group of citizens raised in a hurry to support the undermanned regular army. Today, militia means a group of citizens who train to keep (regulate) the regular army (a well-regulated militia) in check. The Founders foresaw this change in roles and provided accordingly.

The public sees and hears of "militia's" as an anti-government, unsanctioned, bunch of red necks (hate that term, but that is the public perception), out playing soldier in the boonies.
A people's militia is more important today than it has ever been before. Unfortunately there's not many of them.
 

MrShotShot

New member
I've had some similar discussions since the Heller decision and it's impossible to get anywhere arguing the 2nd Amendment with the antis as they simply think it needs to be repealed (ala the Chicago Tribune).

To be honest, most of them would probalby want to scrap the entire Constitution and BoR in order to "modernize" it. No doubt they would want the 2nd Amendment replaced with something along the lines of "Congress shall make no law infringing upon a woman's right to abortion".
 

HK4U

New member
Most liberals do not know or care what any of the constitution really says or means. How many times have we heard the term "separation of church and state" used and then told the constitution calls for it. When pressed to show you where it is in the constitution most of course can not or say it is in the first amendment. Many Americans believe it to be true because it has been repeated by the liberal press, The ACLU,(Atheists communists liar's union) and other socialists groups. Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it is true.
 

rmarcustrucker

New member
to "modernize" it. No doubt they would want the 2nd Amendment replaced with something along the lines of "Congress shall make no law infringing upon a woman's right to abortion".

But NOT WITH A HANDGUN! There would be no abortions with a handgun....handguns are evil and murder innocent people.
 

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,136
Messages
621,664
Members
74,105
Latest member
Tactical Billy
Top