If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
|
#233
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
J. Clarke wrote:
However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion overrides yours. The Supreme Court of the US determines what the 2nd amendment means now, but it has no influence on the interesting question of what it meant when it was written. In order to understand what it meant when written, you must keep in mind three facts: 1) The 10 amendments when written were about restrictions on what the federal government would be allowed to do. 2) To "bear arms" in the English of the 18th century never means to "carry weapons", but can mean "to be part of an army, militia etc." 3) The word "State" in the US constitution refers to the individual states in the union, and not to the US as a whole. With this in mind, here is a modern rephrasing of the intent of the 2nd amendment: Because it is necessary for each State to have a well regulated militia in order to remain free and secure, the federal government may not interfere with the right of the people of each state to join the militia and to keep weapons for that purpose. That is way closer to what it meant originally than what the US Supreme court causes it to mean now. I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole "militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income tax violates the Constitution. It might have prior to the Sixteenth Amendment. Oddly enough the people who proposed the 16th Amendment did not intend to give the federal government the right to an income tax, they assumed that it would never receive enough state ratification, and the proposed amendment being left dead would make it clear that federal income tax would be unconstitutional. This backfired, and the states ratified it rather quickly. Peter. -- |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
On 2014-06-18 13:17:18 +0000, PeterN said:
On 6/17/2014 10:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote: snip The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the "military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia, in separate articles. We should note that there is no Constitutional provision for an Air Force. Remember, even Ben Franklin had his son fly the kite. ....and the Air Force only came into being in 1947. However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion overrides yours. I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole "militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income tax violates the Constitution. WHO ARE "YOU PEOPLE." We have met the enemy and he are us. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
On 2014-06-18 13:58:49 +0000, George Kerby said:
On 6/17/14 11:49 AM, in article 201406170949556752-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" wrote: On 2014-06-17 15:52:17 +0000, Tony Cooper said: On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:02:54 -0400, "PAS" wrote: I'm not sure what "facts" you're speaking of. Am I wrong that in the UK an "ordinary citizen" like you and I are not permitted to won handguns? Some ordinary citizens are dangerous to themselves and/or others. Seventy year-old L.C. Williams shot himself in the foot yesterday. The Orlandoan was carrying his gun tucked in the waistband of his trousers and it dropped to ground. It discharged wounding Williams. The round ricocheted and did $500 of estimated damages to a Dodge Charger in the supermarket parking lot where the incident occurred. I feel badly for the owner of the Dodge Charger. Tucked in the waistband of his trousers! What an idiot! There are too many irresponsible gun owners who get their concept of how to carry a pistol from Hollywood and TV. If you insist on carrying a handgun inside your waistband, which is probably the most insecure & dangerous way of concealing a handgun, consider an *inside the waistband holster*. They exist. http://www.galcogunleather.com/walka..._8_7_1336.html For my two carry weapons (I only use one at a time) I have three types of holster: 1: A handmade belt loop holster made by Andy Aratoonian an English leather artist who makes his holsters one at a time, and has a nine month backlog on filling orders. http://www.holsters.org/covert_22-holster.htm 2: A less exclusive Galco *Paddle* holster which is a grab and go rig and both my Kimber and Glock live in one of these. http://www.galcogunleather.com/ccp-c..._8_5_1054.html 3: Then there is the one I seldom use these days, and was only used when there was a specific need at work, a *Small of Back* SOB holster which makes a good concealed carry holster, with a few drawbacks. For one, you don't want to use one of those if you are going to be sitting in a car any length of time. http://www.desantisholster.com/S-O-B-SMALL-OF-BACK And there is always this model, made for those with double-digit IQ scores... http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...un-waistband-n 131666 Obviously not the brightest guy on the block. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
|
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
In article 2014061807452520591-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says... On 2014-06-18 13:58:49 +0000, George Kerby said: On 6/17/14 11:49 AM, in article 201406170949556752-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" wrote: On 2014-06-17 15:52:17 +0000, Tony Cooper said: On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:02:54 -0400, "PAS" wrote: I'm not sure what "facts" you're speaking of. Am I wrong that in the UK an "ordinary citizen" like you and I are not permitted to won handguns? Some ordinary citizens are dangerous to themselves and/or others. Seventy year-old L.C. Williams shot himself in the foot yesterday. The Orlandoan was carrying his gun tucked in the waistband of his trousers and it dropped to ground. It discharged wounding Williams. The round ricocheted and did $500 of estimated damages to a Dodge Charger in the supermarket parking lot where the incident occurred. I feel badly for the owner of the Dodge Charger. Tucked in the waistband of his trousers! What an idiot! There are too many irresponsible gun owners who get their concept of how to carry a pistol from Hollywood and TV. If you insist on carrying a handgun inside your waistband, which is probably the most insecure & dangerous way of concealing a handgun, consider an *inside the waistband holster*. They exist. http://www.galcogunleather.com/walka..._8_7_1336.html For my two carry weapons (I only use one at a time) I have three types of holster: 1: A handmade belt loop holster made by Andy Aratoonian an English leather artist who makes his holsters one at a time, and has a nine month backlog on filling orders. http://www.holsters.org/covert_22-holster.htm 2: A less exclusive Galco *Paddle* holster which is a grab and go rig and both my Kimber and Glock live in one of these. http://www.galcogunleather.com/ccp-c..._8_5_1054.html 3: Then there is the one I seldom use these days, and was only used when there was a specific need at work, a *Small of Back* SOB holster which makes a good concealed carry holster, with a few drawbacks. For one, you don't want to use one of those if you are going to be sitting in a car any length of time. http://www.desantisholster.com/S-O-B-SMALL-OF-BACK And there is always this model, made for those with double-digit IQ scores... http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...un-waistband-n 131666 Obviously not the brightest guy on the block. Interesting that George uses "double digit IQ scores" as a pejorative, thereby insulting half the population. Earth to George, 100 is "average" and the difference between 99 and 101 is undetectable. |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
On 6/18/2014 12:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2014061807401474819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, says... On 2014-06-18 13:17:18 +0000, PeterN said: On 6/17/2014 10:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote: snip The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the "military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia, in separate articles. We should note that there is no Constitutional provision for an Air Force. Remember, even Ben Franklin had his son fly the kite. ...and the Air Force only came into being in 1947. But previous to 1947 it was the Army Air Corps. Does a name change invalidate the Constitution? -- Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD) Extraneous "not." in Reply To. |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
On 6/18/2014 12:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 2014061807401474819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, says... On 2014-06-18 13:17:18 +0000, PeterN said: On 6/17/2014 10:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote: snip The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the "military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia, in separate articles. We should note that there is no Constitutional provision for an Air Force. Remember, even Ben Franklin had his son fly the kite. ...and the Air Force only came into being in 1947. However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion overrides yours. I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole "militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income tax violates the Constitution. WHO ARE "YOU PEOPLE." We have met the enemy and he are us. It's interesting that he cannot figure out that "YOU PEOPLE" refers to the people who continue to argue that the right to bear arms is guaranteed only to members of a militia after the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. 'YOU PEOPLE" is a pejorative expression typically used to paint all who disagree with the utterer with a broad brush, when the utterer has a position he cannot intellectually defend. -- PeterN |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
Giving photogs a bad name?
"PeterN" wrote in message
... On 6/18/2014 12:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article 2014061807401474819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, says... On 2014-06-18 13:17:18 +0000, PeterN said: On 6/17/2014 10:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote: snip The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the "military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia, in separate articles. We should note that there is no Constitutional provision for an Air Force. Remember, even Ben Franklin had his son fly the kite. ...and the Air Force only came into being in 1947. However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion overrides yours. I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole "militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income tax violates the Constitution. WHO ARE "YOU PEOPLE." We have met the enemy and he are us. It's interesting that he cannot figure out that "YOU PEOPLE" refers to the people who continue to argue that the right to bear arms is guaranteed only to members of a militia after the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. 'YOU PEOPLE" is a pejorative expression typically used to paint all who disagree with the utterer with a broad brush, when the utterer has a position he cannot intellectually defend. You people are all alike. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Giving photogs a bad name? | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 9 | May 20th 14 12:43 AM |
Giving photogs a bad name? | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 4 | May 18th 14 09:30 PM |
Giving up. | Pablo | Digital Photography | 56 | November 7th 12 01:50 PM |
Giving up | Badasghan Lukacina | APS Photographic Equipment | 0 | August 22nd 04 09:11 AM |
Giving up | Beneactiney Redgrave | Film & Labs | 0 | August 21st 04 10:59 PM |