Bernie on Guns

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

You do know that the term "well regulated" meant "well armed", not "subject to lots of rules" at the time it was written, right?

And that the "Unorganized Militia" was every able bodied adult male?

And that one of the earlier versions of the 2nd A was worded as:

Quote

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Composed of the body of the people. Not the National Guard. Everyone.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[propblast 0]

quade

*********In a short period of time the second amendment would be unrecognizable from it's original intent.

The original intent is pretty clear from the language at its very beginning, "A well regulated militia . . . ."

As the Second is currently applied, it's already unrecognizable from that.

your second amendment ignorance is overwhelming

Tell me again which "well regulated militia" you belong to?

None? Hmmm...
You can't take just one part and ignore the rest of the amendment. What does the entire thing say again?

Propblast

[quade 3]

Do you believe a draft of an amendment is the same thing and holds the same legal intent as the law as finally passed and ratified?

I sure as hell don't. Not even a little bit. I believe the actual words in an amendment as signed and ratified are the only definitive version.

While they may be based on any one of a number of other documents, only the words signed and ratified carry any weight whatsoever.

BTW, can you see how even the words "composed of the body of the people" as used in your quotation is ill defined for that time period? You do realize it only meant at best, white males of a certain age range?

BTW #2 -- http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm Not "well armed" but instead, "in proper working order" also known as functioning, but still a militia and not simply everybody.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

propblast

You can't take just one part and ignore the rest of the amendment. What does the entire thing say again?

I'm not. You're coming in late to the conversation and ignoring (or have missed) what is being talked about.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,380]

>He's a politician in an election year, and he's acting like it.

If he were acting like every other politician, he would have made a statement that appealed to as many left wing primary voters as possible - and "people in urban America have got to appreciate that the overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns, and are law-abiding people; that’s the truth" is not such a statement.

>If memory serves, I think he recently also said "sure, you can sue the gun
>manufactures" (I think it was in The Hill).

Which is a good example of something that is 1) true and 2) not something you'd say if you were courting the right wing.

>I don't believe in any compromise on the second amendment.

Then you would be a good example of one of the groups of people he describes above. There are already compromises on the Second Amendment, ones that have been vetted and allowed by the US Supreme Court. (True for most of the other amendment as well.)

>In a short period of time the second amendment would be unrecognizable from it's
>original intent.

Given that gun rights have improved significantly over the past 50 years or so - due mostly to the actions of the "DC crowd" - that's not really a defensible statement.

>The dee-cee crowd has proven time, and time again, to have major credibility issues.
>Say anything to get elected, then do what ever you want (of course big donors have
>priority), after your elected.

I agree. It's refreshing to see someone who isn't giving the party line on guns.

[GD64 1]

billvon

>He's a politician in an election year, and he's acting like it.

If he were acting like every other politician, he would have made a statement that appealed to as many left wing primary voters as possible - and "people in urban America have got to appreciate that the overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns, and are law-abiding people; that’s the truth" is not such a statement.

>If memory serves, I think he recently also said "sure, you can sue the gun
>manufactures" (I think it was in The Hill).

Which is a good example of something that is 1) true and 2) not something you'd say if you were courting the right wing.

>I don't believe in any compromise on the second amendment.

Then you would be a good example of one of the groups of people he describes above. There are already compromises on the Second Amendment, ones that have been vetted and allowed by the US Supreme Court. (True for most of the other amendment as well.)

>In a short period of time the second amendment would be unrecognizable from it's
>original intent.

Given that gun rights have improved significantly over the past 50 years or so - due mostly to the actions of the "DC crowd" - that's not really a defensible statement.

>The dee-cee crowd has proven time, and time again, to have major credibility issues.
>Say anything to get elected, then do what ever you want (of course big donors have
>priority), after your elected.

I agree. It's refreshing to see someone who isn't giving the party line on guns.

Billvon, some fair points and some I will disagree with. After reading your post a couple of times it became clear to me that I should stay out of SC with posts. The time spent thinking through and responding, is more of a time commitment then I want to currently make. Since this forum is give and take, I would be unfair or rude in not holding up my end of the exchange. Thanks.