On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

On 4/1/2012 9:31 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.


"It apparently? Followed by personal speculation, based on a strictly
political agenda.

On 4/1/2012 7:45 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 9:31 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self
defense.

"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

"It apparently? Followed by personal speculation, based on a strictly
political agenda.

Why don't you look up the text of the second amendment.

apparent:
1) Capable of being seen, or easily seen; open to view; visible to the
eye; within sight or view.
2) Clear or manifest to the understanding; plain; evident; obvious;
known; palpable; indubitable.

In article , says...

On 4/1/2012 9:31 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.


"It apparently? Followed by personal speculation, based on a strictly
political agenda.

Oh man....... you are insane!!!

In article , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

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

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.

On 4/2/12 7:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

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

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.




Whatever it means, it surely doesn't mean you can chase down a kid who
is carrying an iced tea and a bag of candy and shoot him to death, not
without consequences, except maybe in Florida.

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 4/2/12 7:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

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

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.




Whatever it means, it surely doesn't mean you can chase down a kid who
is carrying an iced tea and a bag of candy and shoot him to death, not
without consequences, except maybe in Florida.

Take your political agenda somewhere else asshole.

On 4/2/12 7:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In article4qWdnVzZaqnuEuTSnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 4/2/12 7:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

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

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.




Whatever it means, it surely doesn't mean you can chase down a kid who
is carrying an iced tea and a bag of candy and shoot him to death, not
without consequences, except maybe in Florida.

Take your political agenda somewhere else asshole.


Just count me among the group of everyone who doesn't take you or your
demands seriously, moron.

On 4/2/2012 4:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

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

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.

I didn't question that. Your original statement questioned why there
would be a 2nd amendment at all if not for *self* defense. Explicit in
the amendment itself is the answer... "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state".