Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[dbucfan]

I read the NRA didn't want Heller to go forward, but with the outcome are now using it in other venues.  I don't know which ones - thought iirc Chicago maybe?

[Escobar06]

Well you should know that I find both sides to be a joke, and the R's vs D's nonsense is little more than a distraction aimed at fools.

And I think everyone saw what was coming, and what's to come....including the founding fathers.

Vin answer me this, without referencing Heller or the SC, what do YOU think their intentions were with the second amendment?

[VinBucFan]

I read the NRA didn't want Heller to go forward, but with the outcome are now using it in other venues.  I don't know which ones - thought iirc Chicago maybe?

I am not sure the NRA are using Heller. In fact, I posted and article on here commenting that since Heller there have been hundreds of state and federal court gun restriction laws challenged with most challenges failing. Heller arguably upholds almost any gun restriction short of an all out ban, such as the DC law at issue in Heller.

[VinBucFan]

Well you should know that I find both sides to be a joke, and the R's vs D's nonsense is little more than a distraction aimed at fools.

And I think everyone saw what was coming, and what's to come....including the founding fathers.

Vin answer me this, without referencing Heller or the SC, what do YOU think their intentions were with the second amendment?

You mean the "founding fathers"? If that is what you mean, I sincerely don't see the founding fathers as even being able to comprehend what the US would look like in 200 years and I don't think they envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a big deal. It was something that had to be included for 2 reasons: 1) it was already part of the English Bill of Rights and 2) without it they don't get the support of anti-Federalists. I don't claim to be a historian, but that is what i have read and it makes sense to me.  At that time everyone rightfully distrusted the government and arms were needed for daily survival.

[dbucfan]

I read the NRA didn't want Heller to go forward, but with the outcome are now using it in other venues.  I don't know which ones - thought iirc Chicago maybe?

I am not sure the NRA are using Heller. In fact, I posted and article on here commenting that since Heller there have been hundreds of state and federal court gun restriction laws challenged with most challenges failing. Heller arguably upholds almost any gun restriction short of an all out ban, such as the DC law at issue in Heller.

wiki with the handling of the issue in various cases - and with cites.  I don't have the background to be sure of the nuances and relationships - have fun

[Dolorous Jason]

  At that time everyone rightfully distrusted the government

Yes , because we have no need to distrust government any longer. They are 100% trustworthy.  Great argument , Peanut Butter. Let's disarm ourselves and rely on the nanny-state to protect us!

[Chief Joseph]

 Well if there's no immediate threat, wouldn't it be wise to permanently give up our protection against that threat?

[Chief Joseph]

From this day forward, your Cove Pledge Name shall be  . . .  ALF . . . because you sure are an Angry Little **CENSORED**er

No ya big goofball, they call me alf because I like to eat "cat." It's just like how they call you Coq au Vin because you prefer to eat "rooster." Not that there's anything wrong with that.

That wasn't so difficult to figure out, was it?

[Biggs3535]

nobody reads anymore

10,000 words later, this dips*** it still typing to people who can't read.

I've only seen a handful of posters take the collective ass-whippin' PBCBoy has taken, and that's Schultz, Chrispy, and BucsFTW.  You've joined some elite company, all while being completely oblivious to your antics.

[Chief Joseph]

Coq au Vin - spending all his time in a place he never goes, writing to people who can't read.

[Escobar06]

Well you should know that I find both sides to be a joke, and the R's vs D's nonsense is little more than a distraction aimed at fools.

And I think everyone saw what was coming, and what's to come....including the founding fathers.

Vin answer me this, without referencing Heller or the SC, what do YOU think their intentions were with the second amendment?

You mean the "founding fathers"? If that is what you mean, I sincerely don't see the founding fathers as even being able to comprehend what the US would look like in 200 years and I don't think they envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a big deal. It was something that had to be included for 2 reasons: 1) it was already part of the English Bill of Rights and 2) without it they don't get the support of anti-Federalists. I don't claim to be a historian, but that is what i have read and it makes sense to me.  At that time everyone rightfully distrusted the government and arms were needed for daily survival.

I don't even know what to say to that. I think it's clear they included it to help ensure we'd never be taken over......kind of a big deal.

[Pewter Pirate]

Well you should know that I find both sides to be a joke, and the R's vs D's nonsense is little more than a distraction aimed at fools.

And I think everyone saw what was coming, and what's to come....including the founding fathers.

Vin answer me this, without referencing Heller or the SC, what do YOU think their intentions were with the second amendment?

You mean the "founding fathers"? If that is what you mean, I sincerely don't see the founding fathers as even being able to comprehend what the US would look like in 200 years and I don't think they envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a big deal. It was something that had to be included for 2 reasons: 1) it was already part of the English Bill of Rights and 2) without it they don't get the support of anti-Federalists. I don't claim to be a historian, but that is what i have read and it makes sense to me.  At that time everyone rightfully distrusted the government and arms were needed for daily survival.

You are correct, you should not claim to be an historian.  Obviously you did not know that many of the leaders lf the American Revolution were financially ruined and their families cruelly tortured.  They did envision the 2nd Amendment being a big deal. They were in a bloody tortuous war.  It is the SECOND amendment, not the 20th.   Arms and militia go hand in hand with the 2nd amendment.  The arms are necessary for a militia of citizens to form and defend themselves from the government.  No matter what technology they did or did not envision 200 years later did not matter to them. All that mattered is that the citizens had access to arms 200 years later if necessary to defend themselves against a government gone bad, not just a rifle to shoot at a squirrel.

[GameTime]

  Arms and militia go hand in hand with the 2nd amendment.  The arms are necessary for a militia of citizens to form and defend themselves from the government.   All that mattered is that the citizens had access to arms 200 years later if necessary to defend themselves against a government gone bad, not just a rifle to shoot at a squirrel.

i understand your argument...but if you dont have this militia formed BEFORE the turds hit the fan, its gonna be useless.

[VinBucFan]

Well you should know that I find both sides to be a joke, and the R's vs D's nonsense is little more than a distraction aimed at fools.

And I think everyone saw what was coming, and what's to come....including the founding fathers.

Vin answer me this, without referencing Heller or the SC, what do YOU think their intentions were with the second amendment?

You mean the "founding fathers"? If that is what you mean, I sincerely don't see the founding fathers as even being able to comprehend what the US would look like in 200 years and I don't think they envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a big deal. It was something that had to be included for 2 reasons: 1) it was already part of the English Bill of Rights and 2) without it they don't get the support of anti-Federalists. I don't claim to be a historian, but that is what i have read and it makes sense to me.  At that time everyone rightfully distrusted the government and arms were needed for daily survival.

I don't even know what to say to that. I think it's clear they included it to help ensure we'd never be taken over......kind of a big deal.

I mean that I dont think it  wasn't controversial to include it, but I could be wrong. I am not a historian.

[VinBucFan]

Well you should know that I find both sides to be a joke, and the R's vs D's nonsense is little more than a distraction aimed at fools.

And I think everyone saw what was coming, and what's to come....including the founding fathers.

Vin answer me this, without referencing Heller or the SC, what do YOU think their intentions were with the second amendment?

You mean the "founding fathers"? If that is what you mean, I sincerely don't see the founding fathers as even being able to comprehend what the US would look like in 200 years and I don't think they envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a big deal. It was something that had to be included for 2 reasons: 1) it was already part of the English Bill of Rights and 2) without it they don't get the support of anti-Federalists. I don't claim to be a historian, but that is what i have read and it makes sense to me.  At that time everyone rightfully distrusted the government and arms were needed for daily survival.

You are correct, you should not claim to be an historian.  Obviously you did not know that many of the leaders lf the American Revolution were financially ruined and their families cruelly tortured.  They did envision the 2nd Amendment being a big deal. They were in a bloody tortuous war.  It is the SECOND amendment, not the 20th.   Arms and militia go hand in hand with the 2nd amendment.  The arms are necessary for a militia of citizens to form and defend themselves from the government.  No matter what technology they did or did not envision 200 years later did not matter to them. All that mattered is that the citizens had access to arms 200 years later if necessary to defend themselves against a government gone bad, not just a rifle to shoot at a squirrel.

Well, I am no historian and you certainly seem to be, but I would just point this out:

"The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.[72] Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[73] though Whitehill's language was never debated.[74] Rather, the Constitutional delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military context of the amendment[75] and the role of the militia as a force to defend national sovereignty,[76] quell insurrection,[77][78] and protect against tyranny"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_debates

This is the cite for the 2nd being uncontroversial:  "Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Simon and Schuster, 1999, page 252. ("Until recently, the Second Amendment was a little-visited area of the Constitution. A two thousand-page commentary on the Constitution put out by the Library of Congress in 1973 has copious annotation for most clauses, but less than a page and a half for the Second Amendment.")

Never claimed to be right, that's why I said I am not a historian even though it appears at least one published historian agrees with me.