But the individual right, and reasoning for it remain, and the court had
backed that up in both Heller and McDonald
On Jun 13, 2014 2:28 PM, "Eric Roberts" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> At the time...it was able bodied males...not everyone.  The militia act of
> 1904 got rid of the militia system, so the militia that existed at the time
> of the consittution's writing no longer exists.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 12:42 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: RE: Another good visualization about mass shootings
>
>
> It's in clauses, who is the militia, all of the people.
>
> Commas man.
>
> It is a recognized individual right, it is incorporated nationally both by
> the supremacy clause and the 14th amendment.
>
> If you think that's wrong the correct legal remedy is an amendment to the
> constitution.
> On Jun 13, 2014 11:48 AM, "Eric Roberts" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually...no it wasn't.  It was about keeping the militia armed.  We
> > no longer have the militia system. (with exception)  That was replaced by
> the
> > national guard, which is armed by the government.   Please read the
> Militia
> > Act of 1904.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:50 AM
> > To: cf-community
> > Subject: Re: Another good visualization about mass shootings
> >
> >
> > Yup, do you know what their standard was?
> >
> > Anything that is used by a basic infantry company.  Does it have
> > combat utility.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because the right is about the common defense, the military style
> > rifle is the specific item most protected by this amendment.  The
> > right is a right to kill in the face of tyranny.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Eric Roberts <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Tim,
> > >
> > > Even in your favorite SCOTUS decision, Heller, as well as in many
> > > other decisions on the subject, the SCOTUS has even said that the
> > > 2nd amendment is regulatateable.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:59 PM
> > > To: cf-community
> > > Subject: Re: Another good visualization about mass shootings
> > >
> > >
> > > I disagree.
> > >
> > > I think absolute, endowed by our creator, natural
> > >
> > > They describe the same thing.
> > >
> > > Birth right.
> > >
> > > But even then, like I said, amend the constitution. Do it right.
> > > Define the right better.
> > >
> > > Otherwise the first and forth and fifth through eighth and
> > > fourteenth mean nothing at all.
> > >
> > > We have an amendment process.
> > > On Jun 12, 2014 11:53 PM, "Judah McAuley" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey, Tim, quick reminder: Rights are not absolute.
> > > >
> > > > None of them. Not a single damn one, enumerated in the
> > > > Constitution or otherwise amongst the laws deemed Natural.
> > > >
> > > > I am a hard core supporter of the 4th Amendment. And the 1st.
> > > > We've got some agreement in those areas. Still, however, they are
> > > > not absolute. They exist within a context where rights and
> > > > responsibilities are, at times, opposed to one another. That is a
> > > > matter
> > > for law, government, and society.
> > > >
> > > > Your fetishization of the 2nd Amendment has pushed it beyond
> > > > reason, to a state where it is considered absolute. That is wrong.
> > > > It was never that way, in the minds of the Framers or any
> > > > reasonable leader since. You've lost site of what makes our
> > > > country great. Get some
> > > perspective, dude.
> > > >
> > > > Judah
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:04 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Totally screwing up the market in the process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Applying pressure on banks to not service gun related businesses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look at what the ATF has been doing to Aires arms, who operates
> > > > > totally with in the law.  In that specific case the ATF have no
> > > > > legal authority
> > > > to
> > > > > do what they're doing, in effect they are the criminals.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
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:370954
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to