It is a multiclause sentence, as you know. Brokwn into two related but not dependent sections.
Yes we needed a militia, and it need to be trained and regulated. Additionally we have a personal individual right, and no laws should be established to infringe this right. Larry, do you or do you not support firearms legislation without amendment to the constitution? What do the words "shall not be infringed" mean to you from a legal perspective? I made the previous statement after years of talking to you. You have supported laws that violate not only the 2nd but the 4th and 5th and 1st amendments as well. I'm not putting you down because of this, I certainly respect both your intellect and your motivation to do good, and question neither. What I do question is the dishonest manner in which your side seems to operate. Knowingly violating the constitution, yet paying it lip service, and even taking oaths to protect and defend it. Then turning arond and legislating in any manner they see fit, regardless of constitutional restrictions. Does that seem honest to you? Constitutionally sound? On Jan 10, 2013 2:14 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I do not. It is relevant, but I think the interpretation of parts of > it is totally off. Specifically the ignoring of the well regulated > militia. > > and > > > Admit that you think the > > constitution is archaic and should be ignored. At least then I would > know > > not to waste my time in discussion. > > That is utter crap. That is a totally inaccurate and taking things to > a ridiculous extreme. As much as if I said that you wanted everyone to > be armed with mass bloodletting every Wednesday at 3pm. You know > better than that. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry should say "isn't something easy". > > > > Also, Larry could you please answer the last legal question I asked you. > > Answer it honestly, even to yourself. Admit that you think the > > constitution is archaic and should be ignored. At least then I would > know > > not to waste my time in discussion. > > > > With out the baseline foundation of the constitution we don't have common > > grounds to even debate the laws suggested, as without the constitution > the > > government could do lierally whatever the hell it wanted. > > On Jan 10, 2013 1:52 PM, "LRS Scout" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I've heard this was a problem in the 70s and 80s, but have never seen it > >> myself. I'm an expert rifleman, you don't do that without single aimed > >> shots, and proper BRM, breathing, site picture and squeeze. > >> > >> You know as well as I do that real shooting is something easy and takes > >> training and practice. > >> On Jan 10, 2013 1:44 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> My own opinion is that I've never liked the spray and pray approach I > >>> experience when on exercise with the US military (this is when I was > >>> with the Canadian Forces - at NATO Reforger and Able Archer). Our own > >>> emphasis was on "musketry" and aimed suppression fire. A very > >>> different approach. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Bruce Sorge <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > That was more if a rhetorical statement and was not pointed at you > Tim. > >>> > > >>> > Sent from my iPhone 4S. > >>> > > >>> > On Jan 10, 2013, at 1:01 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> I know this man, I speant a couple of years in weapons squads in the > >>> 82nd > >>> >> and the 29th. Yes the crew served weapons are our most casualty > >>> producing > >>> >> weapons. That doesn't really pertain to our current discussion > >>> however as > >>> >> legal machine guns have been used in exactly 1 crime since the > >>> inception of > >>> >> the NFA in the 30s. Beofre that you could mail order them. > >>> >> On Jan 10, 2013 12:42 PM, "Bruce Sorge" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> That's why we have machine guns. To spray the enemy and keep their > >>> heads > >>> >>> down. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone 4S. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I'm saying that yes, a capable man with a 10 shot bolt gun with > >>> optics > >>> >>> can > >>> >>>> do far more damage than someone with a 30 round semi-auto. > Trained > >>> >>> people > >>> >>>> don't spray and pray, we fire single aimed shots at point targets, > >>> and > >>> >>> with > >>> >>>> a bolt action 300 win mag you can tap people near a mile away, > >>> through > >>> >>>> armor. Something you certainly could never do with that AR. > >>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2013 12:10 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" <[email protected] > > > >>> >>> wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> So you're telling me that someone with a single shot bolt action > >>> rifle > >>> >>>>> can do as much damage as an AR-15. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Trained rifleman late 19th century using such a rifle > (Martini-Henry > >>> >>>>> Rifle for instance) could fire around 10-20 rounds per minute on > a > >>> >>>>> good day. A bushmaster in the hands of someone with minimal > training > >>> >>>>> is anywhere from 45 to 120 rounds per minute. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> BTW that chart I noted previously showed that even though > Canadian > >>> >>>>> firearms laws became increasingly more restrictive, the homicide > >>> rate > >>> >>>>> by other means remained relatively stable or even declined. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:46 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> It's funny, Larry mentioned several failed states and genocides > >>> >>> earlier. > >>> >>>>>> However if you look to sme of the very incidents he mentions you > >>> see it > >>> >>>>> is > >>> >>>>>> a person with a motive that kills, not the gun. How many > hundreds > >>> of > >>> >>>>>> thousands, even millions, were killed, tortured and disfigured > with > >>> >>>>>> machetes? How many would still be alive today if they had an AK > >>> under > >>> >>>>> the > >>> >>>>>> bed and a pistol on the night stand? > >>> >>>>>> On Jan 10, 2013 11:42 AM, "Jerry Barnes" <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> "Gun control works if it's area wide.....country wide......it > >>> hasn't > >>> >>>>>>> worked in > >>> >>>>>>> America because it's isolated." > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Maybe we should mimic Mexico's gun control program. It's > >>> nationwide > >>> >>> and > >>> >>>>>>> very restrictive. Works great. > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> J > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> - > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to > >>> achieve > >>> >>> the > >>> >>>>>>> national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have > a > >>> >>>>> civilian > >>> >>>>>>> national security force that's just as powerful, just as > strong, > >>> just > >>> >>> as > >>> >>>>>>> well-funded. - Barack Obama > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359951 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
