|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,498
Posts545,450
Members14,414
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 986
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 986 |
That's the problem with reading written messages, it's hard at times to place them in the context with which the writer intended them.
Were the Founders still alive they would find their scribblings misunderstood and coopted for ends they could not anticipate. Parse well, friends. jack No doubt, and they would be confused by those largely on the political left wanting to ban guns. Without the samples of quotes that I posted originally along with the mountain of evidence of others that exist in support of the 2nd amendment being an individual right, I could understand the potential for different interpretations. However, with all the evidence that I've mentioned, it provides a construction for the individual rights interpretation. As Constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook put it, if there is any proof of the 2nd amendment ever being intended as a collective right by the founders of this nation, it is the world's best kept secret.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
Naw I don't think so j0e, we've all seen your turkey huntin' picture! Now what is that supposed to mean Lowell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250 |
"You think he's sweet on me," meaning Ted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
I bet he dreams about me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250 |
Would you like that j0ey?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
I don't think I have a choice Lowell.. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 329
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 329 |
This is all quite interesting.
To check out the real world, go to NRA-ILA's website and read about HR 1022, introuduced in the House of Reps. There you will see the goal of the anti-gun crowd.
Give one inch and your goose is cooked.
Better start honing your skills with a slingshot.
Rob
NRA Benefactor Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
JM, I'm not a constitutional scholar and I'm not going off for a couple of pages to become one but, surprise, surprise, I agree that the right to "keep and bear" has always meant to me you get to go home with the one you brung or the one they issued rather than it's locked in the armory and someone else has the key. I also believe the Bill of Rights was aimed at protection of individual liberty, expression, and self-betterment from the incursions of government. Too bad the founders didn't use the words "right of persons" or "right of individuals" but they used "right of the people". Could be some of them would have preferred words like freeholders or enfranchised males or the gentlemen in this room and a few who couldn't make it but they didn't and the Supreme Court has been left the task of levering the nation to and fro based on convenient, useful and even occasionally high-minded readings of their instructions.
I also think that given our self-serving attitude which takes the means (right to keep and bear) as timeless truth and tosses out the end (well-regulated militia), it's time we found a new hideout as our strict constructions appear to me to be highly selective in regard to text and reprehensibly myopic about what constitutes the general good. H. Joe uses the word levee several times in just about any way he chooses, as he is a free-speller, God bless him. I'd say the next time the levee breaks (literally) might be a dandy idea to have a levy of the possessors of the timeless rights; you could take your old Starling scarer and pull guard on a Walmart. Of course the Guard (thank em so much 'n all) could perform this collective effort but they appear to be busy elsewhere. We could call it something like Civilian Corps if that didn't offend the free-wheeling sensibilities of the noble fraternity of gun-ownership. All I got to say.
jack
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,379 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,379 Likes: 105 |
Jack, you need to get your facts straight.
 That's pretty laughable, coming from someone who posted this clinker: ...the "we" that beat the Taliban (which did not exist until several years AFTER the Russians were driven out) and AQ consisted largely of other Afghans-- The CIA being on the ground "weeks" before the SF doesn't change the fact that the ragtag Afghani NA forces were impotent against the Taliban until US technology, highly trained warriors and air power cleared the way. The bearded guys on ponies came in afterward to occupy the killing ground. Americans sure as hell beat the Taliban, and we should be proud of the fact, not denying it. Dodging your own "facts" from your previous post, Jack? Some leopards never change their spots. You had SF teams calling in airstrikes. Here is the ACCURATE chronology: 26 Sept--CIA team "boots on the ground" with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan 7 October--Bombing campaign begins 19 October--First SF Team (OD-555, "Triple Nickel") boots on ground with the Northern Alliance Clever of those SF guys to call in airstrikes a couple weeks before they got there. Once more, Jack--air power alone has never won a war, and it sure as heck did not win that one. Yes, we should be proud of what we did in Afghanistan--but we should also recognize the fact that initially, virtually ALL the ground troops (and yes, there was heavy fighting on the ground) were Afghans of the Northern Alliance. Do your reading assignment; get your facts straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155 |
Brown: I don't "dodge" facts. And I don't flyspeck posts, looking for ways to wriggle out from my mistakes. When I pointed out the absurdity of your claim that the Afghans "beat" the Taliban, you couldn't admit your blunder. Instead, you nitpicked whether it was SF or CIA that called in the air strikes that shattered them! The NA had been driven back into the mountains and controlled only 10% of Afghanistan before 9/11, their only unifying leader, Massoud, was dead, and the Northern Alliance was at risk of crumbling. As you should know, the CIA had been 'on the ground' with the NA years before 9/11 - not "weeks" before the NA offensive - and had had little success in getting in US support. The outlook for the Afghans was bleak. Only after 9/11, when the US got serious about al Qaeda and - after an ultimatum - took on the Taliban, did the NA begin to move. And then only after they got serious support from America and could witness the devastating power of US air support. Americans beat the Taliban - the Afghans just did the mopping up. I admit that, although SF spotters did in fact call in air strikes, they weren't the first US teams to do so (did I ever say they were?). Now, Larry, can you admit you got the victors wrong? 
|
|
|
|
|
