But what of Morton Grove?
https://guncontroltruth.wordpress.com/

MumboJumbo wrote on Jul 26^th, 2015 at 11:36pm:


  Thanks BTTF, thanks for reiterating in detail the points that I have been trying to impart all along.


Mortdooley wrote on Jul 26^th, 2015 at 11:58pm:


Also, a thank you to MortDooley as well for your brilliant link which also further establishes my assertions beyond reproach,
making Bwian's position(s) untenable &  totally irrelevant. 

|dev|null wrote on Jul 27^th, 2015 at 12:00pm:


I've been down this road a few times, & it's actually been asked & answered in prior posts on this thread.

They are basically two (2) independent statements, meaning they don't rely upon each other. I post the material part  --  the acknowledgement of a Right that predates the Constitution itself.

It is not a grant of permission, nor is it a governmental  bestowal, it again is an acknowledgment of an inalienable Natural Right which predates the Constitution.

This was clearly understood when the Constitution was written, but as of late it's become a matter of political confusion & contention by those unfamiliar with the Constitution, or having an agenda not congruent with the 'original intent' of the authors..

I will recap for your benefit seeing you missed those posts, & the many links related to this subject.

Firstly, many people not familiar with the US Constitution come to same mistaken conclusions because of the terminology of days past, as compared to present day terminology.

Your definition of Militia is not the definition that was in effect when the Constitution was written back in 1789.

That 1789ish definition, & the writings of the Founding Fathers, & the Framers of the Constitution, stated simply that each/any person of age, able to fire a firearm, & able to come to the common defense, is in & of themselves, the Militia, when they combine with others they are then a combined Militia. The Militia therefore can be made up of as little as one person, or as many as can be assembled.

Regulated in 1789 simply meant trained to a level of competency, or calibrated as in a watch or other piece of machinery, to perform properly.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with governmental regulation, as many groups of today wished it would.

Most People/Militia/Citizens in those days were self-regulated (self taught or trained), or regulated within the family unit, or in small community groups.

You can read back in this thread where I provided ample links & exhibits related to that phrase, & how it's defined.

The United States Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court based highly on the 'original intent' of the authors (Founding Fathers), & their rulings are rarely, if ever based, on modern definition or terminology, because modern terminology is irrelevant when determining 'original intent'.

You need not be a member of the National Guard to own & carry a firearm, as many today wish to interpret the Amendment, but is not necessary as ruled by the Supreme Court, who are the end all when interpreting the Constitution. They have written that it is an individual right, to be exercised by the individual. Being part of any group wasn't required by the 'original intent'.

If you can't find the Supreme Court Rulings related to the Second Amendment I linked to in prior posts, or how the Constitution is interpreted relying on the 'original intent' of the authors, for which I have also provided ample links, I'd be willing to re-post them again if you need me to, just ask & I will do so,  for everyone, when I ,& if I, have time to re-post them. 

Panther wrote on Jul 27^th, 2015 at 6:52am:



DreamRyderX, would you care to enlighten us how the interpretation of the Second Amendment changed in 1977 and 2008?   You do realise that your views are only some 38 years old and come from the mouths of a handful of extreme-Right wing NRA members?   

"Your definition of Militia is not the definition that was in effect when the Constitution was written back in 1789.

That 1789ish definition, & the writings of the Founding Fathers, & the Framers of the Constitution, stated simply that each/any person of age, able to fire a firearm, & able to come to the common defense, is in & of themselves, the Militia, when they combine with others they are then a combined Militia. The Militia therefore can be made up of as little as one person, or as many as can be assembled.

Regulated in 1789 simply meant trained to a level of competency, or calibrated as in a watch or other piece of machinery, to perform properly."

A "militia" has a Constitutional right to form and with use of firearms if they citizens see a viable threat from government tyranny. That is what the 2nd Amendment was all about not carrying a god damn AR-15 or a HK93 into a Chipotles out of a sense of paranoia that Obama "gunna tuk awhey ur gons!" mentality. 



Sorry, I don't see anything that is "organized," "regulated," or even "militia" much less Constitutional here as I do two high school drop out redneck teabaggers with small penises being a threat to public safety.

It's when you become a nuisance to society and scaring citizens that Constitutional rights do not apply here. If one wants to own a firearm out of necessity for personal protection I'm fine with that but don't take your gun(s) into the public sector to justify your unfounded paranoia.

You stalking me, mort?


By the way, that photo was taken in Texas. Would never be caught dead in Texas.

Marla wrote on Jul 28^th, 2015 at 12:17am:


I   don't like   that kind of display either, but when it all settles down, that's not condoning their display, you know my feelings there, but  just looking to how it might be harmful...... outside of a random gun grabbin' liberal coppin' a coronary, or Greenie Progressives soiling their collective hemp & bamboo laced shorts. 

Marla wrote on Jul 28^th, 2015 at 12:17am:


What type of weapons would a well regulated militia have?

I think AR-15 is the exact type of weapon a well regulated militia would have.

Around 300 firearm homicides every year in the USA from rifles which include assault rifles,over 6000 firearm homicides with pistols every year.
The statistics show pistols result in far more deaths than Ar15's in the USA.