Its not true that other countries have less violence in their medias than America does. Denmark and Japan for instance, have even more violence on national TV, and both countries have very few murders per year.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

The 2nd Amendment provides for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, separate from the militia.

If the founding fathers had intended the 2nd Amendment to only provide the right of the millita to keep and bear arms, they would have said so.

The term "the people" has a specific meaning throughout the Constitution.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

The word Necessary, also has a specific meaning in the constitution, and the English language in which that social contract was written.

Yes it does, and if you actually understood English, you'd realize it doesnt have the effect you want to believe it does.

Hey - i applaud you for sticking to your beliefs, but unfortunately my friend, by attempting to argue your position the way you are, you only succeed in making yourself look foolish.

There is no legitimate justification in the Constitution for any form of gun control. None. Every single one of the current federal and state gun control laws are blatantly illegal and yet we accept them as a nation as we continue to work them through the necessary process to get them struck down.

Parker v. D.C. will likely be the death knell for the gun control movement if it makes it to the USSC. Big if, i know, but there is a chance.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I tend to understand English quite well. You may have noticed that fact, by the lack of ad hominems I use in my logic and reason.

It depends on what you mean by gun control. If regulating well, a militia of people who keep and bear arms, is considered a form of gun control; then it is clearly delegated to the states to ensure the wellness of regulation of a militia of people who keep and bear arms; and the arms they keep and bear.

No - you really DONT - thats the problem.

I am not attacking you, i am pointing out the fact that you do not understand what you're talking about.

Your use of phrases such as "wellness of regulation" and "regulating well"; your emphasis of the word "necessary" and the implication that it is somehow a modifier; and your odd sentence construction and use of punctuation all send the message that English is not a language over which you have full command.

I'll make a deal with you though. I'll stop pointing out your glaring lack of understanding when you get around to answering some of the direct questions you have been asked. Fair enough?

We're all still waiting on your answers to the following:

1) Where is the federal government granted the authority to control private arms ownership? Remember, it must be explicitly granted to the government for the authority to exist.

2) Where else in the US Constitution is the term "people" used to refer to a collective body as opposed to the individual?

3) What other article in the Bill of Rights is a restriction upon the populace? For that matter, is there any part of the Constitution which is a restriction upon the people (other than the 18th Amendment which has been repealed and no longer counts)

There are many others but those three should get you started. Consider them objectively and realize that the same definitions you insist upon placing on certain words in the 2nd Amendment MUST be applied throughout the entire document, and you'll realize that your postition is fatally flawed.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I suggest it is only a problem for people who do not think there is any authority for a state to regulate people who keep and bear arms.

There is no authority granted to the federal government to regulate arms, outside of section eight, in our constitution.

I think it is a bit of sophistry on the part of individualists, to try to use that tactic. A militia is the collective action of individuals. A militia cannot exist without its individual (people) component. Why did the Founding Fathers not simply write, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"; if the 2A was supposed to be an inalienable right of individuals, regardless of the needs of the state?

It is unique to statism, that a requirement for ensuring the domestic tranquility and common defense exists. The second amendment serves as a reiteration, of the state's ability to call a well regulated militia of people who keep and bear arms, to the defense of the state. How many times does the word Necessary appear in any of the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights?

You mean like those of us who can read and are capable of independent thought?
Then, in point of fact, you are aware that your entire argument is pure bullshit.
You have a lot of gall accusing those of us who wish to require the government to live by the rules of being the ones using sophistry.
Thats been explained - exhaustively. If you dont understand it, that really isnt my problem. Pretending that you havent had that question answered a thousand times though is terribly irritating.
Not QUITE. Again, this has been repeatedly explained to you.
Irrelevant.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Every gun hater should be held accountable for failure to protect the unarmed law abiding citizens on school grounds killed by the recent school yard killers.
The gun haters demanded and got gun free zones at schools. The gun haters are responsible for the protection of unarmed law abiding citizens because they demanded these gun free zones.

Every gun lover should believe it to be their patriotic duty to serve in a well regulated militia, in order to ensure the domestic tranquility and common defense.

So how do you explain that in numerous instances in the Constitution -appearing both before and after the 2nd Amendment - the phrase "the people" has a consistent meaning, but in the 2nd Amendment it has a different meaning?

Everyplace else that it appears, "the people" means the citizenry of the United States as a whole.

But to some, this phrase takes on a different meaning in the 2nd Amendment.

Seems very illogical to me.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

From my perspective, it is not so much that people have an individual right to keep and bear arms, but that the state can regulate people who do keep and bear arms. Just as a militia has a specific meaning, and is a requirement of statism; unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights. It may seem like a different meaning, but it is only due to the requirement of a state to be able to utilize the collective action of individual people who keep and bear arms, that this difference in meaning is derived. In my opinion.

Where exactly is the state granted that authority, outside of having controlling authority over the military of course.

Seriously - i want to know.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Probaby the same reasons there are many killings with knives in the UK.

Kramer

There aren't any, other than the police powers traditionally inherent in any state for ensuring the domestic tranquility and common defense. The broad police powers of the several states, are what are usually argued. That is why I am of the opinion, that the states would have less recourse, if people who keep and bear arms actively participate in a militia.