He did the country a great service. He’s an extraordinary hero.

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment debate is to take away the right of the people to resist government power. There isn’t a more clear statement of a right in the entire Constitution. The Supreme Court has recently unnecessarilly ruled that the amendment means what it says. So there can be no doubt that the people have a right to bear arms. Moreover, we know that the argument that restricting guns will save lives or prevent crime is false. That has been shot down a million times in dozens of ways.

So why is the racist white guy a hero?

Because he made an in-your-face statement to all of the idiots on the Left that we all agree with and that had to be stated. Yet, he is the only one to act forceably to do so. It took a lot of guts. And the fact that the white guy looks an awful lot like a black buy makes it brilliant.

So here we have a person who just spit in the eye of the lunatic left and has their bowels moving still. It took tremendous guts because he knew the false rage would be compounded by their fear. It had to be said. It put the nutters on notice. And it twists the guts of the loons, not just because they are cowards, but also because it turns their one-trick-pony racial canard on its ear.

He’s a hero.

At least you are persistent.

You are not presenting any arguments that have not been thoroughly vanquished, both by logic, history and the S.C.O.T.U.S.

If you wish to convince the voting public at large that you are correct on this one, you have an uphill climb. Our forefathers seemed to understand that government micromanagement of personal freedoms was a recipe for disaster. The whole purpose of a constitution, especially our constitution, is to preserve a set of values in the wake of inevitably changing leadership. In this case, personal freedoms.

With freedom comes responsibility and sometimes personal failure. Your position on this issue seems to indicate that you don’t think people are deserving of freedom, that it’s too hard and that folks should consign personal choice on the most important, fundamental issues to a panel of their elected or appointed “betters”.

They are more common today. Perhaps just due to a larger population. But easily, in every major city west of the Mississippi there are at least three shootings. (“gunfight”) if you will per day. But if you mean groups of men against other groups of men, then….there were many documented cases of that, but not nearly of the regularity that hollyweird would have you believe.

My point being that they were not the “organized-meet-me-at-high-noon” affairs the movies make them out to be. And very often, the best gunslingers preferred to avoid confrontation, if at all possible, though there is a well-documented case where Bill Hickock did just that after being insulted one day.

Perhaps that’s where the myth grew out of.

I was just making the point that the 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of guaranteeing our gun rights – to participate in a regulated militia. You have to use tortured logic and ignore the intent of the framers to claim otherwise.

Or you can simply read what they wrote–both in the Second Amendment and in dozens, if not hundreds, of other writings and statements. Sorry to tell you this, but your basic, already-established premise is simply not true.

-I say: Yes, that’s always been the deterrent. Cops and Secret Service. I got popped in the face once while standing right next to a cop. Sure, the guy got dragged out but I still had a broken nose and wondered what the hell happened.

In at least two high-profile court cases, the courts have determined that the police do not have a duty to protect you. Their job is to chase down criminals, but you officially cannot depend on them to protect you.

Well, the truth be told, they were more common than today, but not to the extent of an ‘everyday occurrence’.

Here I got to disagree. Louis L’Amour did the research and found more than 10,000 documented gunfights in a ten-year period of time during the Old West.

As the Second Amendment goes away, so does the First. The Second Amendment puts teeth in the First.

The Constitution allows us all to keep a shotgun to defend our house. But bringing an assault rifle to a political event is not polite, it looks crazy.

These guys hurt the image of people who favor gun rights because they are pushing their rights too far. I would say that these news stories made teh chances of another assault wepaons ban much higher.

—–I say, let them carry them wherever and whenever they want. If it “causes” an “assault weapon” (got what a PC term for “rifle”) ban then the system is really out on its ear. The key issue being fear. As I fear heights, I do not put myself in that position. It’s the old age argument of self-discipline versus enforced. This is why you don’t see gun-fearing liberals at gun shows, unless they are there to make trouble. But certainly nothing wrong with walking around and looking.

And even if walking around with guns on your person “makes the chances of a ban much higher” so what? Perhaps you’ve been watching too many westerns where everyone was carrying a sidearm and gunfights in the streets were “commonplace”. Well, the truth be told, they were more common than today, but not to the extent of an ‘everyday occurrence’. Cowboys carried them to ward off coyotes, wolves, bears, etc that would attack the herd. Most “gunfighters” died not from gunplay in the streets but by being ambushed, which says a great deal about not wanting to attack someone who is carrying a gun.

And looks bad “schmooks bad” (sorry)… Who the frig cares? Here again, you CANNOT LEGISLATE WHAT PEOPLE THINK. To hell with gun haters and all the rest. By and large I believe the gun OWNERS have less of an agenda to antagonize non gun-owners than the other way around.

You say:

The area was crawling with cops and secret service, and no one had to fear that they would be beat up.

—-I say: Yes, that’s always been the deterrent. Cops and Secret Service. I got popped in the face once while standing right next to a cop. Sure, the guy got dragged out but I still had a broken nose and wondered what the hell happened. Eventually the idiot got to spend a month in jail and pay a huge fine. But it took a long time and it didn’t fix my nose. Since he was broke, the court decided he was unable to pay the medical costs so he got the month in jail. Yay! If I had a gun, I cannot say he wouldn’t have hit me (and to this day I have no idea why it happened)…but he might be sporting a new wooden box to spend eternity in. However, even then, getting popped in the face is usually not grounds for firing a weapon. If I told the judge that I feared for my life because the guy had threatened me that way, then I might be able to stand my ground…and gun owners know this, usually better than non-gun owners. In many states it is not legal to shoot a guy simply for breaking into your house. Though I disagree with that, that’s the law.

You say:

Moreover, if you are willing to get beat up in public for speaking your mind politically, then this makes your moral case stronger. That’s what MLK and Gandhi figured out.

—-I say: I don’t know a lot of people who are WILLING to get beat up….for any reason. And my point was exactly that; That he DIDN’T want to get beat up and a no-kidding deterrent for that is carrying a weapon. He did not go there to GET beat up…but if he should get into a discussion whereby he had the RIGHT to speak his mind, certain “liberal” morons…as what happened in Texas, might take affront to that and bash him one or two. Then hide in the crowd before the police knew what the hell happened. Sure, they might get caught eventually but their damage has been done and they probably thought it was worth it.

And, going anywhere hoping to get beat up in order to “make your moral case stronger” is just whacked.

You say:

Taking an M16 to an appearance by the President of the United States is just not reasonable behavior.

—-I say It’s not? What is? Carrying Bush on a pole hanging in effigy? Signs that say “KILL BUSH!”? I submit to you that a man carrying a rifle, peacefully, not bothering anyone makes exactly the right statement. I also submit that it’s your desire to CONTROL that person that makes you on the side of wrong.

You say:

No, my parents never gave me a credit card. I was just making the point that the 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of guaranteeing our gun rights – to participate in a regulated militia. You have to use tortured logic and ignore the intent of the framers to claim otherwise.

—–I say, I agree with ProReason on that. And I do see the argument which you illustrated rather well. But to that end, if I did that to my father, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, he would’ve pulled me out of school, and cut me off financially and told me to go get a job and see how it is to work and earn money then not have any. In fact, I went to college with a guy who did pretty much what you described. His father was a very wealthy brain surgeon….and while I struggled on my own dime, and other guys would write home and maybe ask for 2 or 3 hundred dollars, this guy would whine to his old man for 4 or 5 grand. And get it. Just about every six months. Then, he’d go buy a motorcycle, stereo equipment, Scuba gear, etc. I graduated. As a matter of fact, I got there after he did, and after I graduated, he was still there. I have no idea what his dad was thinking but perhaps it was just to keep him the hell away. Spoiled rich kid….no discipline at all. Never been told “no”.

Gee, they could have written it differently, couldn’t they have?

They could have written: “The right of the People to keep and bear arms as members of a well regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.”

But they didn’t write it the way you would have liked, did they?

The founders were notoriously careless with words. That shows you the difference between William and Mary attendees like Jefferson and Monroe, and REALLY educated people like Obama, Drooling Barney and Traitor Kerry..

These guys hurt the image of people who favor gun rights because they are pushing their rights too far. I would say that these news stories made teh chances of another assault wepaons ban much higher. The area was crawling with cops and secret service, and no one had to fear that they would be beat up. Moreover, if you are willing to get beat up in public for speaking your mind politically, then this makes your moral case stronger. That’s what MLK and Gandhi figured out.

Taking an M16 to an appearance by the President of the United States is just not reasonable behavior.

No, my parents never gave me a credit card. I was just making the point that the 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of guaranteeing our gun rights – to participate in a regulated militia. You have to use tortured logic and ignore the intent of the framers to claim otherwise.

I submit that I should want to prevent you from being anywhere near children. See, I have a strong suspicion that you would molest at least one of them. Now, I know I shouldn’t go on just a premise that I merely suspect that you might…but it’s a very strong suspicion. By just being anywhere near them gives me fears. Therefore, you should be prevented from being anywhere near any children. Denying that you would harm any of them, won’t do you any good because clearly, to me, just by being a male…you are EQUIPPED to be a child molester. Regardless that the law says you can go anywhere you want…I fear that your presence near any children is a threat..and you shouldn’t walk around anywhere near them just because the law says you can. Obviously, you would be taking advantage of your constitutional rights by venturing anywhere near children as if to say, “Ha! I can be around kids and nobody can do a thing!”

Think that sounds ridiculous?

It’s actually happened.

In Phoenix, actually, when I lived there. To a homeless person who had set up his “squat” not half a block from a day-care center.

jasper, get your head out and see the world. If you really did that with the credit card then you are an ass. Abusing his rights? Let’s take another spin on it….he’s black and he’s afraid that if he speaks out against Obama, the liberal thugs will beat him up. So….he carries his weapons with him…and liberal thugs, stupid though they may be, would still have to think twice about trying to clobber a guy armed thus. As I said, an ARMED society is a POLITE society. Shame you cannot understand that it’s not the weapons that are bad…it’s people’s bad behavior that cause guns to be demonized.

I hope that your utopian dream of everyone living in peace and harmony comes to pass but history proves otherwise.

Education can’t totally overcome abject stupidity, but it can help mitigate it.

“Because I want you to have money for gas or a ticket home in case of an emergency, here is a credit card in your name.”

I maxed it that same day on a jet ski and girly mags. My dad called me when he got the bill and I explained to him that Justice Scalia convinced me that a prefatory clause does not restrict what comes after it in the same sentence. My dad did not agree. I guess that he and Justice Scalia disagreed about my dad’s original intent.

Using this same logic, these guys are abusing their rights in order to make it look like they can threaten the President of the United States with assault rifles.

Two separate statements, but the second being very clear; SHALL NOT.

Which works well and is agreeable to Scalia’s opinion. Well put pdsand

“Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual’s right to own a firearm(?)

Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, “Yes.” The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790’s than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.”

——AND:

“This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So the Constitution only guarantees gun possession for people who are active in local militias and, thus, answer to a captain. This dude does not look “well regulated”, as the founders required. Where’s his commanding officer?

The Constitution could have easily said “self defense being necessary to the security of the citizen…” but it doesn’t.