Posted on 05/03/2010 8:52:31 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
Clearly, the framers placed the right to bear arms within the context of organized military service....
No, the framers placed the existence and derivation of the militia within the context of the right to bear arms. Notice which is mentioned first in the original draft. Patrick Walsh's argument is both backwards and dishonest. He also continues the incorrect and dishonest definition and misuse of the term "well regulated".
May as well move to San Fransisco and stop hiding in the closet.
4 years of college and then becomes an officer sounds like the ROTC program.
That’s the difference between normal folks and libtards. Maybe if he were my neighbor it would be otherwise, but as it is I have never entertained the idea of shooting any of my neighbors.
Ok. I just saw it. Patrick Walsh poetry.
That explains everything.
And the remark thet he could shoot his neighbor in his living room at a hundred yards is just the kind of remark some whack job poet from Princeton would make to prove a point.
I have a few guns, and never thought about shooting my neighbor. But then again,I don’t like poetry either.
This guy gives me the creeps.
He look happy in his photo.
look —> looks.
“They viewed state militias as a check against the misuse of the army to impose centralized tyranny.”
And, my poor dimwitted friend, you think this is no longer an issue?
What a tool. Enough said.
Every time Philadelphia politics come up I smell the former (late 18th century) “President” of Pennsylvania .. Joseph Reed, and this current writer appears to be a descendant of that wretched creature.
A much better article would be “Nation’s Liberal Cancer Spreads”.
“Scientists talk about gene “expression” when referring to how the inherited instructions of our DNA are converted into working proteins in our bodies - an interpretive process. With interpretation can come error, and serious errors in gene expression can lead to diseases such as cancer.”
Sounds like he’s been drinking his bong water.
BTW, a**hat, the first version of the second amendment was turned down, with good reason. The right to bear arms doesn't apply to militias but to individuals.
WELL REGULATED!
WELL REGULATED!
WELL REGULATED!
***Clearly, the framers placed the right to bear arms within the context of organized military service.***
Before the Civil War all commentators considered the 2nd Ammendment to be an individual right.
After the slaves were free’d this changed to a “collective right” so as to deny former slaves the right to own firearms.
***I once carried a rifle in defense of the Constitution. Now I wield a pen and must trust the adage about its superiority.***
Let some criminal kick in your door on a rampage and see just how powerful your pen is dum bass!
Literally LOL (not internet jargon-speak, it really happened).
It didn't just happen in the movie. The idiot did it for real.
You want to talk about the real gun cancer?
How about libs who keep pushing for new gun laws because they and their judges WILL NOT enforce existing ones?
How about lib lawyers and judges NOT DROPPING gun law violations by felons on plea bargains?
How about lib prosecutors and judges issuing the maximum penalties possible for criminals committing gun crimes? I mean if they really are serious and it’s as big of a deal and societal problem as they say it is, then step up and make examples of violent career criminals and not be swayed by their color or hard-knock stories.
Want more? Gun cancer in this nation? How about cities and counties and states who still try to pass laws restricting law abiding citizens’ abilities to a) have a firearm, b) have a firearm readily accessible and usable, c) limiting how many you can have, d) when and how often you can buy one, e) trying to prevent private sales or inheritance ability of firearms between parents and children, or relatives, f) trying to frame the issue as purely a hunting issue that works to reduce the types of guns that would be allowed, g) trying to paint allowing people to be armed as ‘the wild west’ when in 48 states where this is allowed crime goes down 20-30 percent immediately and no such liberal fear is realized.
How about the idiots who say “Well who needs a 50 cal gun? What next, you want a nuke too?” The 18th century equivalent of heavy weaponry was a cannon. And no, the Founders and the average person never was looking at the 2nd Amendment as a granting to them to purchase personal cannons. It was to have the same kind of personal arms soldiers had (infantry). We currently are more restricted by that definition today, we have less ability to have what the average infantry soldier can carry. So tell these ass-hats we’re more backwards today in what civillians can use than what the infantryman of today can use. And yet they still aren’t happy about how much we can use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.