On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:17:43 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:16:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:53:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Hmm. Nothing about self-defense against marauding gangs with
high-capacity ARs, or protecting your home against intruders? No
citizen militia?

Oh thats well covered by the right to self protection. No so much in
Socialist nations. And Blue States...but I repeat myself.

Hmm. Which part of the Constitution says that? Only the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Its found in "Natural Law"...on which much of the Constitution is
based. G

So, we're in a recursive circle here. You do need the 2nd, and for
more than defense against "them taking it away."

It sure makes killing politicians legal when they come to take the
Peoples guns away.
VBG





Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
between your ears.

Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
sorts of threats. Government threats.

This is all fine philosophy, and a good reason for the 2nd (see
Scalia, et al.). But it's not what the quip says, and that's what's in
dispute.

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. g

Oh it works just fine. Perhaps not to you..but enough people here ..a
majority in fact...seem to understand it well enough. So it would
appear you are out....voted.


Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
them in bullet points. d8-)

You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?

Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.

Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.

Does it matter who said it? Its still true.

So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?

Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
front of you. Fall through?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie