Can we agree that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today?

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM

The framers made their positions blatantly clear in the Federalist Papers and in their private writings on the subject. There is no doubt about where they stood then…nor where they would stand today.
The Second Amendment means exactly what it says…despite all the semantic contortions of the leftists to try to change its meaning.

Tell me, again, who was it that heckled George W Bush at Obama’s INAUGURATION?

“Na, Na, Hey, Hey, Kiss Him Goodbye!”

WTF heckles anyone at a solemn occasion like THAT except for classless ‘tards?

Nope, no hypocrisy there. Move along.

I’m saying your side is the one guilty of re-interpretation.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM

.
And I’m saying yours is.
Can we agree that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today?

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM

.
And I’m repeating yours is.

What would “agreeing that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today“, change?
Myself and others have already stated that advancements in weapons technology wouldn’t change the Founders mind, even if they experienced it first-hand.

If the Founders could “rise from the dead” and see our current accepted societal standards of normalcy, they’d be horrified.
But not at semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines in the hands of the general public. They’d first and foremost want to know why we (the country at large) institutionalized atheism.
They would ask Christian believers directly; “How could you have allowed this to happen?”
That’s where their focus would be, if they could view our current National state of condition, and address us concerning it.

Can we agree that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today?

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM

We know where they would be, especially since they did not have hunting and sporting in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM

And? Is she not a woman and mother?

As for the VAWA, much of it was struck down – correctly – as unconstitutional in United States v Morrison because it violated both the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

I’m saying your side is the one guilty of re-interpretation.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM

And I’m saying yours is.
Can we agree that interpretation is required as far as where the framers would be on this issue as it exists today?

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Yea, that was an entertaining exchange.

The irony is that Trotter is with Independent Women’s Forum –
a hack org backed by AFP they got it’s start as a ‘women who love Clarence Thomas’ group. They worked to kill the Violence Against Women Act.
D.C. is a strange place.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM

.
Well let me know if that starts happening.
(Although it seems ‘re-interpreting’ is more what’s happened on your side of the argument.)

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 3:05 PM

.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution IS about the common citizen having the physical capability (arms) to withstand a tyrant government.

I’m saying your side is the one guilty of re-interpretation.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/female-gun-advocate-lays-into-democratic-senator-over-womens-second-amendment-rights/

Gayle Trotter:

“I respectfully disagree. I understand your also a graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law and you were close to Monticello where Thomas Jefferson penned our Declaration of Independence and close to Montpelier where James Madison was instrumental in drafting the Bill of Rights. I think you can understand that, as a woman, it is very important not to place undue burdens on our Second Amendment right to choose to defend ourself.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse defended himself, saying that he simply brought up the McKinley story as an example of “one that would not bear an argument against the proposal” to ban certain weapons, “because that Remington Express is a weapon that would be perfectly allowed.”

An incredulous Trotter responded by asking:

“Would it have been unreasonable for her to use a different gun to protect her child?

Whitehouse:

“I think if she was using a ’100 weapon.’ Let me put it another way. She would clearly have an adequate ability to protect her family without the need for a 100-round piece of weaponry.”

Trotter:

“How can you say that? You’re a large man. You are a tall man. You are not a young mother who has a young child with her. And I am passionate about this position because you cannot understand, you are not a woman stuck in her house, having to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to seek safety, on the phone with 9-1-1, and she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child, and she is not used to being in a fire fight.

“An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies at her home becomes a defense weapon,” Trotter said as jeers erupted. “Guns are the great equalizer during a violent confrontation.”

The male, Progressive Senator Sheldon Whitehouse ends by, figuratively, attempting to pat Ms Trotter on the head and implying that he knows what’s best for her because, after all, she’d be able to use another type of gun – even if she was not as efficient at it.

Senator Whitehouse, please don’t attempt to lecture us about the types of guns that we should use to defend our bodies and minds and those of our families.

Loughner used a pistol and I don’t think he fired enough shots to have been hindered by a magazine restriction. (I am open to correction on that point.)

GWB on January 30, 2013 at 3:14 PM

I understand he had a Glock with an extended clip for 33 rounds.
He was tackled once he’d emptied that clip, and had 2 more ready with 15 in each. So something like this.

AN APOLOGY: “No, those gun supporters didn’t ‘heckle’ Neil Heslin – they just shamed themselves with their disgusting behaviour. My mistake.”

Piers Morgan on Twitter 1:34 AM – 30 Jan 13

.

“How can anyone shout ‘My 2nd Amendment rights!’ at a man asking why anyone needs the assault rifle that murdered his son? Just repulsive.”

Piers Morgan on Twitter 1:35 AM – 30 Jan 13

.
What Adam Lanza used doesn’t disqualify it as being a legitimate tool/implement/device to “allow” in the possession of the common American citizen.

I’m only surprised that we didn’t see obama, biden, cuomo and feinstein waving the children’s bloody clothing in the air.

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Remember, this is fascism with a smiley face. There won’t be any actual bloody shirts waved, merely rhetorical ones.

Here’s the thing – you can throw up all the stats you want,

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 2:02 PM

That’s sort of what folks here are pointing out about your ‘arguments’ – you’re ignoring all the evidence actually being presented to you.

(though I have yet to hear any where the defender would have been defeated had these restrictions been in place).

So, that kid who defended himsself and his sister in a home invasion with an AR-15 would have had the same outcome if all those weapons were outlawed? Hmmmmm. Don’t think so.

(And, yes, I understand it’s not an entirely static analysis, and something else might have filled that gap. But it is perfectly valid to ask if anything else would have had the same result.)

But if one focuses purely on the facts of those 2 incidents, some of the remedies being discussed (that you oppose) would have unquestionably change the outcomes (body counts) there.

None of the solutions proposed would have made a difference in either situation. Not because there is dispute over their effectiveness, but because they would not have impinged on any of the facts in either case, so far as I know. All the desired laws (with the exception of the 100% background check – which wouldn’t have impacted the facts) were in place in CT, and Loughner used a pistol and I don’t think he fired enough shots to have been hindered by a magazine restriction. (I am open to correction on that point.)

if indeed it was proven to you that these restrictions would work…in that they would in fact reduce some of these incidents and deaths…would you support it then?

Nope. Because it isn’t worth it if we save just one life. Freedom is more important than that. It’s why our military members put life and limb at risk. Otherwise, why would they do so? After all, if it saves even one life……..

What happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT does not constitute a valid grounds-basis for re-interpreting, re-amending, or abolishing the U.S. Constitution.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Well let me know if that starts happening.
(Although it seems ‘re-interpreting’ is more what’s happened on your side of the argument.)

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 2:45 PM

You are making an argument against the idea that we can eliminate risk.
And nobody is suggesting that.

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 1:37 PM

.
And you say you want what works –
if indeed it was proven to you that these restrictions would work…in that they would in fact reduce some of these incidents and deaths…would you support it then?

(Also…I can hear you fine. No need for all the caps and bolding…unless you do mean to be shouting at me.)

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 2:02 PM

.
Nope, I wouldn’t “support it then.” … Period.

American citizens are to maintain ownership/possession of civilian semi-auto models of military rifles and light weapons, complete with high-capacity magazines.
The purpose being to fulfill the original intent of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT does not constitute a valid grounds-basis for re-interpreting, re-amending, or abolishing the U.S. Constitution.

verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 2:02 PM

There IS an AWB in Connecticut NOW.

How did that work out for the people at Sandy Hook?

Its head would explode.

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Don’t you mean implode? That would make more sense, given the vacuum between their ears. :-)

But they don’t care enough about the law to follow it – so they are – by definition – criminals.

(You’d really think that leftists would know these things.)

Solaratov on January 30, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Let’s not forget that the left has been bending over backwards to demand that Muslim terrorists be given full Constitutional rights yet treat law-abiding gun owners as criminals-by-proxy.

Even if a gun ban was highly effective, the grandfather clause would prohibit law enforcement from confiscating legal firearms. Confiscating firearms with a trial would be a violation of the Constitution.

Kinda makes you wonder who liberals REALLY consider as their enemy. It ain’t the radical Muslims, that’s for sure.

Until then, shut the f*ck up until you know what you’re talking about.

Kingfisher on January 30, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Its head would explode.

hypothesize on how Tucson and Newton could have happened in some other way, give examples of people defending themselves with firearms

Yet you hypothesize about the effectiveness of gun control but fail to provide any reasoned argument on their effectiveness.

You can hypothesize on how gun control will save lives but until you can provide any evidence that shows even a hint of their effectiveness, you’re only blowing crap out of your ass.

“The sole purpose of those AR-15s or the AK-47 is put a lot of lead out on the battlefield quickly

A handgun can accomplish the same result, especially in an enclosed area.

I’ll agree with you when we start putting our children out on battlefields. (/sarc)

Until then, shut the f*ck up until you know what you’re talking about.

I want what works and, as I show above, the homicide rate has dropped dramatically even as the number of AR-15s has increased. Evidently, it is NOT the guns that is the problem. So, infringing upon the rights of gun owners is only going to be done to, um, infringe on the rights of gun owners because some people don’t believe other people “need” some types of or any kinds of guns. That’s not going to fly.

Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Here’s the thing – you can throw up all the stats you want, hypothesize on how Tucson and Newton could have happened in some other way, give examples of people defending themselves with firearms (though I have yet to hear any where the defender would have been defeated had these restrictions been in place).
But if one focuses purely on the facts of those 2 incidents, some of the remedies being discussed (that you oppose) would have unquestionably change the outcomes (body counts) there.

And you say you want what works –
if indeed it was proven to you that these restrictions would work…in that they would in fact reduce some of these incidents and deaths…would you support it then?

(Also…I can hear you fine. No need for all the caps and bolding…unless you do mean to be shouting at me.)

roflmmfao