The 2nd Amendment

I've got some questions for all you 2nd Amendment gurus who think you know what the Amendment means.

"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."

Was this kid who shot all these 6 and 7 year olds a member of the "well-regulated militia" that the 2nd Amendment references?

If not, then how does the 2nd Amendment apply to this situation?

If so, then are we to conclude that the "militia" is not very well regulated and some changes need to made? Like making certain those who possess weapons designed to secure a free state end up in the hands of those who will use them for that end? Rather than murdering 6 year olds with those weapons?

Discuss.

Militia

I would say that had the faculty been a well-regulated miltia, this would have been a different situation. Keeping guns out of responsible people, who care for your children, results in a security lax. It's sad what happened, but it could have been preventable.

The stupid fucking asshole seemed to be mental. The lack of seeking help and giving him access to firearms was the bad choice of the mother.

I would say that had the faculty been a well-regulated miltia, this would have been a different situation. Keeping guns out of responsible people, who care for your children, results in a security lax. It's sad what happened, but it could have been preventable.

The stupid fucking asshole seemed to be mental. The lack of seeking help and giving him access to firearms is what the main problem was. Originally Posted by YoHou

So? The first and second grade teachers were members of the well regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment refers to? None of them were male per the statute you cite. Did anybody tell them they were part of the militia even though they weren't males? If not, does that mean that the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply? Do all teachers need to be male in order to be a part of the militia? We've got a lot of teacher slots to fill then, don't we? Get it? Dumbass?

So? The first and second grade teachers were members of the well regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment refers to? None of them were male per the statute you cite. Did anybody tell them they were part of the militia even though they weren't males? If not, does that mean that the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply? Do all teachers need to be male in order to be a part of the militia? We've got a lot of teacher slots to fill then, don't we? Get it? Dumbass? Originally Posted by timpage

No, not the children, I said the faculty. Had they been armed, after careful training and selection, they could have neutralized the threat. You're stuck on this whole "militia" part because you do not fully understand it. I linked to the militia, above what you quoted me on, so check that out first.

Also, calling people names, while debating, is just showing your ignorance not just on this subject, but anything else you are saying. Learn to form proper sentences and use proper grammar before calling anyone a "dumbass!"

The premise of your OP is wrong, the rest is specious hyperbole, Little Timmy. The 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a fire arm.

Read @


http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

You are ignorantly choosing to ignore the obvious, Little Timmy. The individual who committed this heinous crime – note that word "CRIME" – did not purchase or have legal ownership of the weapons he used. This individual facilitated his heinous crime by committing several other crimes beforehand: including murdering his mother. He broke the law multiple times. He broke the very laws you and your ilk claim will prevent such heinous crimes.

The premise of your OP is wrong, the rest is specious hyperbole, Little Timmy. The 2nd Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a fire arm.

Read @


http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

You ignorantly choosing to ignore the obvious, Little Timmy. The individual who committed this heinous crime – note that word "CRIME" – did not purchase or have legal ownership of the weapons he used. This individual facilitated his heinous crime by committing several other crimes beforehand: including murdering his mother. He broke the law multiple times. He broke the very laws you and your ilk claim will prevent such heinous crimes.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're the one ignoring the obvious...and for obvious reasons. You have no answers to the questions. Quack as much as you want about any legal violations. Doesn't that mean that the "well-regulated" provisions of the 2nd Amendment have been violated?

By the way, thanks for your response, but you are clearly too stupid to deal with this issue. Anybody else? I'm looking for a serious response to the question, not your uninformed and ignorant opinions.

No, not the children, I said the faculty. Had they been armed, after careful training and selection, they could have neutralized the threat. You're stuck on this whole "militia" part because you do not fully understand it. I linked to the militia, above what you quoted me on, so check that out first.

Also, calling people names, while debating, is just showing your ignorance not just on this subject, but anything else you are saying. Learn to form proper sentences and use proper grammar before calling anyone a "dumbass!" Originally Posted by YoHou

Well, I'll wait for your direction on where I went wrong on proper sentences and grammar, I guess. So, you're saying that before any teacher in the United States is certified to teach, they need to undergo "careful training and selection" in regard to the appropriate response by a lunatic armed with an AR-15 assault rifle? Will that be part of the required curriculum for elementary school teachers? I wonder how many wonderfully qualified teachers will be disqualified because they don't want to carry a Glock while they teach.

Discuss.

Well, I'll wait for your direction on where I went wrong on proper sentences and grammar, I guess. So, you're saying that before any teacher in the United States is certified to teach, they need to undergo "careful training and selection" in regard to the appropriate response by a lunatic armed with an AR-15 assault rifle? Will that be part of the required cirriculum for elementary school teachers? I wonder how many wonderfully qualified teachers will be disqualified because they don't want to carry a Glock while they teach.

Discuss. Originally Posted by timpage

There is nothing I can say that will get your head out off your ass for nothing critically thinking anything I B Hankering or myself has said. You lack the ability to understand what words mean, clear evidence in the lack of understanding of the supreme court cases listed in the militia post I made. You want to talk gun control on an escort forum? LOL, why don't you be a man and create an account on anyone of the fine gun forums there are. I'm sure you can find people that'll wipe the floor with you and knock you off your high horse when it comes to the second amendment. I dare you go go create a post, with the same name you have here, and show us how smart you really are.

Come to think I was going to participate in a thought-provoking thread, but then get insulted by an idiot.
Again, I cannot debate with idiots, so I am going to stand down.

There is nothing I can say that will get your head out off your ass for nothing critically thinking anything I B Hankering or myself has said. You lack the ability to understand what words mean, clear evidence in the lack of understanding of the supreme court cases listed in the militia post I made. You want to talk gun control on an escort forum? LOL, why don't you be a man and create an account on anyone of the fine gun forums there are. I'm sure you can find people that'll wipe the floor with you and knock you off your high horse when it comes to the second amendment. I dare you go go create a post, with the same name you have here, and show us how smart you really are.

Come to think I was going to participate in a thought-provoking thread, but then get insulted by an idiot.
Again, I cannot debate with idiots, so I am going to stand down. I'll repeat the questions if you're memory impaired:

Was the shooter a member of the "well regulated militia" that the 2nd Amendment refers to?

If not, was his ability to access the guns he killed the 6 year olds with satisfy the requirements of the militia that the 2nd Amendment references qualify as that militia being "well-regulated'?

I'll wait for your answers genius.


Originally Posted by YoHou

Right. You're going to stand down because you have no answers to any of the questions I've posted. If you do, then keep talking. If not, then bow out like the dumbass you've admitted yourself to be. I'll repeat the questions if you're memory impaired:

Was the shooter a member of the "well regulated militia" that the 2nd Amendment refers to?

If not, was his ability to access the guns he killed the 6 year olds with satisfy the requirements of the militia that the 2nd Amendment references qualify as that militia being "well-regulated'?

I'll wait for your answers genius.

I will go with what The Supreme Court says.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/

You're the one ignoring the obvious...and for obvious reasons. You have no answers to the questions. Quack as much as you want about any legal violations. Doesn't that mean that the "well-regulated" provisions of the 2nd Amendment have been violated?

By the way, thanks for your response, but you are clearly too stupid to deal with this issue. Anybody else? I'm looking for a serious response to the question, not your uninformed and ignorant opinions. Originally Posted by timpage

No, you willfully blind, dumb, uninformed and ignorant individual: your assertion that an individual's right to bear arms is dependent on and relates only to military uses is ignorantly wrong! “The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they [YOU, Little Timmy] ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. . . . . [W]hen the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard” Senator Orrin Hatch. http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

There is nothing I can say that will get your head out off your ass for nothing critically thinking anything I B Hankering or myself has said. You lack the ability to understand what words mean, clear evidence in the lack of understanding of the supreme court cases listed in the militia post I made. You want to talk gun control on an escort forum? LOL, why don't you be a man and create an account on anyone of the fine gun forums there are. I'm sure you can find people that'll wipe the floor with you and knock you off your high horse when it comes to the second amendment. I dare you go go create a post, with the same name you have here, and show us how smart you really are.

Come to think I was going to participate in a thought-provoking thread, but then get insulted by an idiot.
Again, I cannot debate with idiots, so I am going to stand down.


Originally Posted by YoHou

No, you willfully blind, dumb, uninformed and ignorant individual: your assertion that an individual's right to bear arms is dependent on and relates only to military uses is ignorantly wrong! “The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they [YOU, Little Timmy] ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. . . . . [W]hen the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard” Senator Orrin Hatch. http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Not responsive. Was the kid a member of the well regulated militia that the 2nd refers to? If not, was his possession of the weapons he used to kill the children the result of the "well regulated" provisions of the Amendment?

Get it? I know you're stupid based on what you post, but this seems simple enough. Do you just not like any answer that your pea-brain can come up with?

Originally Posted by joe bloe

So? No answer to my questions? You know I'm right. You have no answer.

So? No answer to my questions? You know I'm right. You have no answer. Originally Posted by timpage

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I do know the Supreme Court has upheld the individual's right own firearms for over two hundred years. So it seems that it's established law. It's clear that you don't have to be in a militia to have the right to bare arms.

You guys on the left need to cowboy up and try to appeal the second ammendment. You obviously want to disarm the citizenry and that's the best way to do it.

Until the second ammendment is repealed we Americans have the right to bare arms. The founders believed we needed this right to protect ourselves from a tyranical government. Now, more that ever, I believe they were right.