Bullet makers can't keep up with demand

wait awhile...

because I read the TOC and the quotes you posted plus you haven't said anything about why I should care

and like that

Ok, well keep on supporting gun control then, I wouldn't want any facts or Harvard studies getting in the way of that.

I trust the New England Journal of Medicine

I don't think that guns cause crime. I already explained that :crapper:

Your response is total and complete affirmation that you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. Thank you.

nah, it only affirms that i'd rather troll u than educate u...especially when events beyond us both r assured to do my work for me.

I would appreciate it if you would not make the AIDS and faggot jokes. It doesn't really belong here.

actually, it kinda does. SFN is a snakepit...an often fun n funny one, but a snakepit nonetheless.

some of the very most vicious n subhuman things i've ever seen written here have been on P&N, from left n from right.

Keep it in P&N then. I don't think you were ever banned from saying things here, were ya?

Just have to compliment you on that excellent piece of bullshit.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Somehow that signifies plurality to you and that in turn means Government...

So the right to keep and bear arms is actually a Government right and if I read the rest of the amendment correctly, that right still shall not be infringed...

So if that's the case, is not every law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms unconstitutional? It would appear the Government is indeed infringing upon itself.



Nevermind... Heller already said so.

I understand what the majority in Heller opined. I just agree with the dissenting opinion, and not applying a traditional test is worrisome as well.

hmm u keep squealing about 'failure', yet u failed to account for y u believe 'the people' means 'the collective' in Amendment 2, but 'the individual' in Amendments 1,4,9,10 n others....:gwave:

nope.

blah blah blah.

You really are a blithering tool.

n u r a half-steppin idiot cunt, too fearful to either give up ur guns or defend ur right to own them, too stupid to explain ur preposterously sophist and selective reading of the Bill of Rights...n i think u must have choked on Bill Buckley's dry-dust cum at some point, since he's got as much real estate in ur head as i do.

If they are unknown trolls using mults to attack, well, it is what it is. The Rogny thread is a disgrace the way they attack you and his friends, but it is the internet anonymity that shields them. But here, aside from a few mults, you get to know the posters, so it is unacceptable from a known poster if the discussion is to be worth anything. It is like cheating at cards, trying to win with cheap shots., it only diminshes the poster.

It's about historical context. "People" did not include women, slaves, non citizens, etc. It was a bone to the state governments and their militias that didn't trust federal authority.

"The key to understanding this lost context of the Second Amendment resides in the writings of thinkers such as James Burgh, who distilled the history of Scotland into a potent tonic for the Founders, reminding them of the dangers of allowing the militia to be disarmed by a distant and powerful government. 4
Burgh's thought has not figured prominently in recent writing on the Second Amendment by gun rights advocates who have been more enamored of the Italian Enlightenment theorist Cesare Beccaria who attacked laws that prohibited individuals from carrying guns and argued that such laws benefited criminals. In essence, Beccaria was the first modern theorist to argue that when firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have firearms. Thomas Jefferson was impressed with this argument and copied it into his commonplace book. Jefferson did not, however, model his proposal for the Virginia Declaration of Rights on this expansive conception of the right to own firearms. Instead, Jefferson's proposal for the Virginia Constitution affirmed that, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."6 Supporters of the individual rights view have attached great significance to Jefferson's words and to his fondness for Beccaria.7 Of course, the primary architect of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and Constitution was not Thomas Jefferson, but George Mason, who stated the ideal of a well-regulated militia in terms reminiscent of Burgh, not Beccaria

That a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and, governed by the civil power.8
Mason's language shares little with either Beccaria or Jefferson. Indeed, none of the arms-bearing provisions adopted by state constitutions in the Founding era followed Beccaria's or Jefferson's model. Both Beccaria and Jefferson's more individualistic conception of the right to have arms for self-defense clearly stood outside of the constitutional mainstream in the eighteenth century. 5
Rather than focus on Beccaria, Konig directs our attention to Burgh. Konig also persuasively argues for Burgh's influence on both The Federalist and the debates over the militia in the Virginia Ratification Convention. As several recent critics of the individual rights model of the Second Amendment have noted, the subject of a private right to own firearms outside of the context of the militia was rarely discussed during the ratification debates, while the need to protect the militia from the threat posed by the Federal government received extensive commentary.9"

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.1/comment_cornell.html

if that's true, than CrazyTree, Dread and Luther have long since diminished out of existence...

as for Rogny, i always felt he was too vulnerable to trolls here, tho he masked it with sweetness. i find my vulnerability to the trolls minimal, n their vulnerability to their own mistakes greater...so playing them against themselves is fairly entertaining.

n ur right, they diminish themselves.

I don't believe "The right of the people" means federal OR state governments. It simply means what it says .

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Its awfully simple, I don't know what all the hub-bub about "the people" part is about cause the end result is the same when you get to the "shall not be infringed" part.

Either way, the Federal Government should not have anything to do with gun control and that opens its own can of worms.

I didn't know Rogny but it sounds like another sad story of someone who emotionally invested themselves in an internet board and got hurt over it. Its all too possible and happens every day. I don't know how many young kids actually commit suicide over internet bullshit every year but that figure is rising as more and more people socialize on the net where there is no natural restraints due to anonymity and no face to face contact.

The internet is like alcohol. If you are an asshole, you will be an even bigger asshole if you drink or get online.

This passage points out the militia as the basis for the collective theory of the 2nd A, quite ably. Since it is not littered with unnecessary verbiage designed to shield modest intellectual gifts, it is doubful some may understand the clarity of the passage.