What chaps my hide is when I put a few direct anti-gun quotes which someone made into a post, and the same few supporters of the Liberal Left Democrats who work tirelessly to separate us from our guns rise up in mock indignation. Then they get their panties all bunched up and bother Dave with demands that he remove them or lock a thread. But they don't do the same thing when one of their like-minded peers puts up a thread like this one which has absolutely nothing to do with advancing the knowledge and appreciation of double guns. Let me demonstrate:
It's hardly mean-spirited to note that I'm an Obama supporter. I'm proud of it, apparent here as long as he's been around. He's anti-gun but has kept his legislative gun in his holster to position his party for '16.
The Court departed from the original understanding of the Second. The NRA and other groups rejected the original interpretation. Even as late as 1991, the jurist Burger appointed by Nixon said "the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller, what Burger said was fraud was accepted by the court. Interesting stuff.
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
Dave, Dave, Dave: you're like those fundamentalists who claim Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. There was no NRA at time of the Founding Fathers. The change was recent to what the Second is today. You acknowledge as "infringements" all those jurisdictions making the Second what they want it to be. But still the law.
Whether Americans carry because they can or have to is not the issue. They democratically make decisions on how they want to live. Their homicide record is not edifying among modern societies. It is a violent country.
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
I am typically pretty direct and straightforward. What passes for civility here is quite often hypocrisy laced with thinly veiled insults hurled by someone who thinks that they are above the fray by not naming names... as King has done here in his post. Dishonesty is not civility. Some are astute enough to see right through it:
I think many here don't recognize King's penchant for Passive-Aggressive communication, and mistake it for some degree of decorum. He he is able to convey unreasonable concepts in a usually reasonable manner. That's the essence of attempted sociopathic indoctrination and manipulation.
Others see right through straight faced denial of their own words:
....He promised a day or so ago he was holding back some juicy quotes to prove I'm anti-gun, a common ploy of persons on the margins looking for attention....
Proof? Apparently, the only legal evidence that you're pro gun is that you used to dive in frigid storm driven waters for lost guns. Note the past tense. Seems your position has evolved, ergo, now you're anti gun.
Another totally Off-Topic Thread... another door opens where anything goes! Let's end this with an I.Q. test:
