Family Research Center Shooting

[Debbie Thompson]

Really?  Pages and pages of arguments about rocks, guns and swords?  There have always been crazy people who found a way to hurt and destroy.  The problem in modern times is that we have found weapons that can be so much more destructive than a musket, a sword (or a rock.)

On the one hand, it could be argued that the need for a "well regulated (citizens) militia isn't as necessary with the organized armed services we have now.  But on the other hand, should the armed services ever be used by Washington against "the people" we would wish we had the ability to fight back.  The issue can, and has, and will be argued for a long, long time.   And either way, there will still be crazy people who hurt other people.

Oh, and while the painting posted may have been the wrong war, the French were highly involved in the Revolutionary War.  They wanted to get back at the English.  They provided arms, uniforms, troops, supplies, and their Navy.

[BridgeTroll]

Oh, and while the painting posted may have been the wrong war, the French were highly involved in the Revolutionary War.  They wanted to get back at the English.  They provided arms, uniforms, troops, supplies, and their Navy.

And there WAS an Indian holding a rifle in the foreground...

[BridgeTroll]

Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?

Because you seem to be implying that Guns, and any weapon technology in all its forms are specifically protected by the second amendment.

Did you pay attention to the other part of that amendment?  The 'well regulated militia' part?

I have never implied that.  The word "arms" in the second amendment is understood by most to mean firearms.  It is quite well established that certain items have been deemed to be "regulated".  Very few have a problem with those items.  The problem occurs when you... and the media... confuse semi automatic weapons with sub machine guns or decide to call them assault rifles.  My shotgun which has been well used for my entire life is semi automatic.  Is it an assault rifle?  Sub machine gun?  If I lived in Australia it would apparently now be illegal and make me a criminal.

[NotNow]

Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?

Because you seem to be implying that Guns, and any weapon technology in all its forms are specifically protected by the second amendment.

Did you pay attention to the other part of that amendment?  The 'well regulated militia' part?

I have never implied that.  The word "arms" in the second amendment is understood by most to mean firearms.  It is quite well established that certain items have been deemed to be "regulated".  Very few have a problem with those items.  The problem occurs when you... and the media... confuse semi automatic weapons with sub machine guns or decide to call them assault rifles.  My shotgun which has been well used for my entire life is semi automatic.  Is it an assault rifle?  Sub machine gun?  If I lived in Australia it would apparently now be illegal and make me a criminal.

So?

Just because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.

But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

What do you think the second amendment was about?  I can see that you still haven't read the Federalist Papers.

[Pinky]

Educate us Stephen..  What was the Second Amendment about?  You seem to want to force others into explaining it so that you can dissect their responses for some exploitable element; how about you sack-up and just tell us what it means?  So far it seems you think it means we should all have compulsory swashbuckling lessons.

Enlighten us, my clever friend.

[Pinky]

Educate us Stephen..  What was the Second Amendment about?  You seem to want to force others into explaining it so that you can dissect their responses for some exploitable element; how about you sack-up and just tell us what it means?  So far it seems you think it means we should all have compulsory swashbuckling lessons.

Enlighten us, my clever friend.

The right of the people to bear arms, in order to maintain a well ordered militia.

Which "people"?  Citizens, or the armed forces?  And what qualifies as "arms"?  Since these seem to be the primary lines of attack you take in dissecting other's posts, please explain for us how you interpret them.

[NotNow]

Since you are going to go Constitutional on the subject, Bridge Troll, where in the Constitution does it even mention guns?

Um, yes, it does.

speaking of actually reading something before you open your johnson trap...........

As I have proven, that is exactly what the writers meant.  You have not, and can not, show anything written by the writers of the Constitution to show otherwise.  I have provided you with PILES of proof that that is exactly what they meant.  Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it any less true.

Remember that "prove your statements" thing StephenDare!?  That is what you have consistently failed to do.  Instead of just ignoring it and flooding the thread with BS, try supporting your statements.  This is one that you have failed miserably to do so.

[BridgeTroll]

Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?

Because you seem to be implying that Guns, and any weapon technology in all its forms are specifically protected by the second amendment.

Did you pay attention to the other part of that amendment?  The 'well regulated militia' part?

I have never implied that.  The word "arms" in the second amendment is understood by most to mean firearms.  It is quite well established that certain items have been deemed to be "regulated".  Very few have a problem with those items.  The problem occurs when you... and the media... confuse semi automatic weapons with sub machine guns or decide to call them assault rifles.  My shotgun which has been well used for my entire life is semi automatic.  Is it an assault rifle?  Sub machine gun?  If I lived in Australia it would apparently now be illegal and make me a criminal.

So?

Just because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.

But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

I really am curious what you think the term "arms" means... sounds like you think it is sabres and swords and knives... all of which are arms of course... right along with firearms.

So please... numerous others have asked... and now so am I. 

[NotNow]

I would also point out that the USSC has defined "arms" to include "guns" or "firearms" or whatever other word someone decides to come up with.  Not to mention the fact that the individual right to possess "guns" has been affirmed by the same court.   Common knowledge to most of America.

I'm still waiting for StephenDare!'s explanation of the second amendment and his definition of "arms".  I doubt either is forthcoming.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I'm still waiting for StephenDare!'s explanation of the second amendment and his definition of "arms".  I doubt either is forthcoming.

I'm sure he and ChriswUF are cooking up some response counter point explanationdistraction...   

I guess it really does suck walking into a gun fight when you're only carrying a rock, errrrr sabre, errrrrr IndianwithamusketLOOKOUT.......   

[BridgeTroll]

Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?

Because you seem to be implying that Guns, and any weapon technology in all its forms are specifically protected by the second amendment.

Did you pay attention to the other part of that amendment?  The 'well regulated militia' part?

I have never implied that.  The word "arms" in the second amendment is understood by most to mean firearms.  It is quite well established that certain items have been deemed to be "regulated".  Very few have a problem with those items.  The problem occurs when you... and the media... confuse semi automatic weapons with sub machine guns or decide to call them assault rifles.  My shotgun which has been well used for my entire life is semi automatic.  Is it an assault rifle?  Sub machine gun?  If I lived in Australia it would apparently now be illegal and make me a criminal.

So?

Just because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.

But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

I really am curious what you think the term "arms" means... sounds like you think it is sabres and swords and knives... all of which are arms of course... right along with firearms.

So please... numerous others have asked... and now so am I. 

[Pinky]

Educate us Stephen..  What was the Second Amendment about?  You seem to want to force others into explaining it so that you can dissect their responses for some exploitable element; how about you sack-up and just tell us what it means?  So far it seems you think it means we should all have compulsory swashbuckling lessons.

Enlighten us, my clever friend.

The right of the people to bear arms, in order to maintain a well ordered militia.

Which "people"?  Citizens, or the armed forces?  And what qualifies as "arms"?  Since these seem to be the primary lines of attack you take in dissecting other's posts, please explain for us how you interpret them.

Pinky, I have maintained a civil tone throughout this conversation, but if you want to mischaracterize my discussion as 'attacking', then I will simply treat you with all of the respect that not now has earned from me.  In other words, the barest minimum.

You clearly have identified your own set of questions as a result of this discussion.

Which "people"?  Citizens, or the armed forces?  And what qualifies as "arms"?

If you recognize these questions, then please stop accusing me of 'attacking' for asking the same ones.

I try not to bother with notnow, as he does not posess the capacity for independent thought or analysis.  As you can tell from the thread already, whenever he is asked to think outside his predetermined boundaries, he gets nervous and angry, and begins calling everyone else in the thread either unpatriotic, questions their character or calls them shills.

If you would like to proceed with civil discussion, let me know.

Stephen-  Thats a pretty subjective reading of the phrase "line of attack", which is what I said.  I "accused" you only of dissecting others posts for exploitable elements, which is clearly what you're doing now even.  If my use of the phrase "line of attack" is troublesome, let's substitute "line of questioning" and proceed.

[ChriswUfGator]

After 8 pages, nobody will answer the question of whether they'd rather face an attacker with a rock or one with a gun.

[Pinky]

Thanks for the clarification, and my apologies for seeming overly sensitive.

No apologies necessary; just a misunderstanding.  Now back to the topic at hand; what "people" are afforded the right to keep and bear arms, and what constitutes "arms"?

[BridgeTroll]

After 8 pages, nobody will answer the question of whether they'd rather face an attacker with a rock or one with a gun.

You noticed that, huh?

Although to be fair, bridgetroll did answer. ( he prefers the rock). The jury is still out for Ock, who presumably is still weighing all possible logistics.....lol

Notnow will take them both simultaneously (although that was not the question......what a Man!)

And to be really, completely fair... Stephen has artfully dodged answering any questions posed by other posters.  Perhaps Chris could even let us know what he thinks the second amendment means... and specifically the meaning of "arms".

Just because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.
But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

I really am curious what you think the term "arms" means... sounds like you think it is sabres and swords and knives... all of which are arms of course... right along with firearms.

So please... numerous others have asked... and now so am I.