Time for a new "Mass Shootings" thread

See, this is why the purpose of the Fouding (deadbeat) Fathers doesn't need to be treated like gospel. Adam A(u)nt here could shoot only twice before someone beat all the mascara off him. Guys now can squeeze off seemingly endless rounds before reloading.

what does this mean to you?
"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."
look at the context as well as the purpose.
most people seem to only recall the last 14 words...
but the context of keeping and bearing arms is within that of a well-regulated militia.
and the purpose is to ensure the security of the state. not your own personal security, and certainly not to (as many argue) to allow citizens to overthrow the state, should it become tyrannical.
so if you want to exercise your 2nd amendment right (the actual 2nd amendment right, not the imagined one that comes from only reading the last 14 words), I say go down to your local National Guard recruiter and sign up! last time I checked, your right to keep and bear arms (a fully automatic assault rifle at that!) within that context (i.e. that of the constitution) has not been infringed upon.

http://boingboing.net/2013/02/04/former-pilot-and-911-conspira.html

"Phillip (alternately, "Philip") Marshall, 54, a career airline pilot who claimed to have once served as a contract pilot for the CIA and DEA during the Iran-Contra affair, shot and killed his two teenage children, and the family dog, then killed himself..."

of course, this doesn't mean that people can't own a gun for other valid purposes - like personal protection, hunting, sporting, killing your neighbor's annoying dog, overthrowing the government, etc. it only means that you don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms for those purposes and within these non-constitutionally protected contexts. the only context within which the government protects your right to bear arms is within that of a well-regulated militia, and only for the purpose of protecting the state (as opposed to overthrowing it - which many gun nuts seem to think was the real intent of the framers of the constitution).
the state may still allow you to keep and bear arms for these other purposes and within these other parameters, but it's entirely up to the states. they can pass laws (i.e. regulate) to allow you access to guns within certain limits, or they may pass laws to disallow you access to guns completely (outside the 2nd amendment guarantee).
so people need to stop citing their "2nd amendment right" in trying to make the case for their freedom to own whatever gun they feel they need for whatever purpose they feel they need it. the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with that. all it does is guarantee you the right to join the National Guard should you feel so inclined.

That's essentially my argument above. Now, that's specifically not how the SCOTUS has interpreted it recently. The chances of that interpretation were effectively ended a couple years ago unless the Court has big changes.

I think it's at least worth a try.
I have this disease that makes my mouth really dry. so I resort to this methodology on a regular basis. can't quite tell if it's working or not, but I hesitate to give it up, just in case it is working.

So much for strict constructionist interpretations.

seriously. I thought we were supposed to use the plain meaning of the word and only consider what's between the four corners of the paper - or parchment. using those concepts, I don't see how any sane judge can come up with a different interpretation.

You are funny (funny odd, not funny ha ha). In one thread you predict a mass riots and in next thread you ask why anyone would need more than a musket to protect themselves and their property.

Perhaps you should ask the Koreans in LA?

You're a dumbass, Pim.

I didn't ask anything.

Pim? LOL! Aren't you clever? And of course you didn't ask, you simply spout some foolishness thinking it is clever, so I suggested you ask the Koreans shop keeps trying to to repell a mob what they think of your opinion.

They aren't black so Auria doesn't care about them.

Of course not, Pim.

Nope, a simple show of force by shopkeepers to keep the looters at bay. It worked while neighboring shops were ransacked.

And who wouldn't want to live in such a freedom-rich paradise?

By the way, what does the Constitution say about ammunition? Highly restricted access to ammo is how the Swiss do it. "Everyone" has a gun, it's just hard as hell to get bullets.

I wouldn't want to live in the freedom-rich paradise of the LA riots.

And this is what the Constitution says: "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."

Your first and third commas were not in the version which was ratified.

Forgive me.

Minnman, here, for the record, is the final version of the text:

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

Sorry if I mislead you earlier.

I've posted essentially this a couple of times before, but the conversation keeps coming around to the same place, so I'm going to do it again:

Consider the phrase "Well-Tempered Clavier." It does not mean "a piano made of hardened steel" and it does not mean "a piano which does not scream and throw things." "Well-tempered" in this context has a technical meaning referring to the way it was tuned.

Similarly "Well-regulated" in reference to militia does not mean "subject to the government's rules and laws." The professional soldiery of the time were referred to as "regulars" and the local levies as "militia." There was plenty of experience throughout the western world with militia which, when called produced about 30% attendance, showed up armed only with pitchforks and clubs, or with fowling pieces and three rounds of ammunition, or unshod and without blankets, or impeached any officers who asked them to actually march or fight, etc etc.

The fledgling US, expecting to have little to no professional army, needed a militia which could be grown into a professional army over the course of any extended hostilities (which was exactly what happened in the Revolution.)

In other words, they knew they needed a militia which would show up armed and equipped, and obedient to the leadership of their choice-- a "well regulated militia"-- and they knew they could not get one unless the raw materials existed. That is, ordinary citizens who owned and were used to using firearms, were reasonably fit, and willing to commit to extended and potentially distant service.

In addition it is worth pointing out that private ownership of artillery was not mentioned because it did not occur to anyone as needing mention-- it was so commonplace not only in North America but throughout Europe, and for that matter the Muslim world, that the notion anyone would ever interpret their sentence to mean "muskets and rifles only" would have seemed truly improbable to them.

That's pretty self-centered isn't it? Do you have any idea how many died because you didn't defend them?

Better yet, if instead of having a mob armed with bats and sticks, I bet one armed with assault weapons would had been more peaceful.