We are about to lose some freedom...

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your OPINION. The 2nd Amendment is very non-specific.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We can argue all day and night as to what gun rights, and to whom these rights, are granted by the 2nd Amendment. And after arguing all day and night we will probably not agree. The states cannot agree. The courts cannot agree. The 9 members of SCOTUS cannot agree. Yet YOU know EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment states and how it MUST BE interpreted.

Give me a break.

On the contrary, I know exactly what it means. The founding Fathers knew that an armed population would be a deterant to any future attempts by the Federal Government to resort back to the old systems of dictators, kings, emperors, despots, and others who saw themselves as "superior" to the individule citizen and had the right to subjugate them.

These men knew that in order to keep the freedoms that they had just won and placed in The Constitution, it would require a diligence expressed by the common citizen that was unheard of in most Governments of the time.

Hence, the Amendments, in this particular case, the 2d.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

On the contrary, I know exactly what it means. The founding Fathers knew that an armed population would be a deterant to any future attempts by the Federal Government to resort back to the old systems of dictators, kings, emperors, despots, and others who saw themselves as "superior" to the individule citizen and had the right to subjugate them.

These men knew that in order to keep the freedoms that they had just won and placed in The Constitution, it would require a diligence expressed by the common citizen that was unheard of in most Governments of the time.

Hence, the Amendments, in this particular case, the 2d.

If true, and I happen to agree with you, there is absolutely no mention in your statements as the right to individuals to bear arms for self-protection as the woman in post #18 was doing and was arrested for doing it.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If true, and I happen to agree with you, there is absolutely no mention in your statements as the right to individuals to bear arms for self-protection as the woman in post #18 was doing and was arrested for doing it.

In my opinion, as just an individual citizen, I think the State of New Jersey is wrong.

[I B Hankering]

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823.

.

" ... to disarm the people [is] ... the best and most effectual way to enslave them ..."

— George Mason, 14 June 1788, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If true, and I happen to agree with you, there is absolutely no mention in your statements as the right to individuals to bear arms for self-protection as the woman in post #18 was doing and was arrested for doing it.

Any comment about the elderly school teacher arrested for having an antique? A gun that needs a flint, powder, ball, and patch to fire?



By the way, they dropped the charges. I guess even New Jersey was embarassed by what they enforced.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You just fucked yourself. I have not spoken about states right in some time and you've misrepresented what I said. You are someone else who has either been banned or has been pretty much marginalized if you "remember" what I wrote months ago. I'm taking you out of the picture and putting you on ignore. I encourage everyone else to do the same with this lying sack of shit.

Oh no! I misrepresented what you said. You've never done that, I'm sure. You actually said something about it a few days ago but whatever.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Any comment about the elderly school teacher arrested for having an antique? A gun that needs a flint, powder, ball, and patch to fire?



By the way, they dropped the charges. I guess even New Jersey was embarassed by what they enforced.

What were the police supposed to do? The law was broken. I am very happy that the charges were dropped but police are paid to uphold the laws on the books, no matter how stupid they are. Should the police decide which laws to enforce and which to not enforce? A real dilemma. Obviously the law should, if possible, be rewritten to avoid such problems in the future.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

On the contrary, I know exactly what it means. The founding Fathers knew that an armed population would be a deterant to any future attempts by the Federal Government to resort back to the old systems of dictators, kings, emperors, despots, and others who saw themselves as "superior" to the individule citizen and had the right to subjugate them.

These men knew that in order to keep the freedoms that they had just won and placed in The Constitution, it would require a diligence expressed by the common citizen that was unheard of in most Governments of the time.

Hence, the Amendments, in this particular case, the 2d.

No you don't. People much smarter than you can't agree but somehow you got it all figured out. That's a good one.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

No you don't. People much smarter than you can't agree but somehow you got it all figured out. That's a good one.

I happen to believe I am quite a bit smarter than those people who can't read a simple sentence and understand it's meaning.

All of these "much smarter" people want it to mean what they think it should mean. That is not being smart. That's engaging in wishful thinking.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

No you don't. People much smarter than you can't agree but somehow you got it all figured out. That's a good one.

Actually, Jackie is spot on accurate. The confusion arises because some people want to distort the words to suit their own agenda.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What were the police supposed to do? The law was broken. I am very happy that the charges were dropped but police are paid to uphold the laws on the books, no matter how stupid they are. Should the police decide which laws to enforce and which to not enforce? A real dilemma. Obviously the law should, if possible, be rewritten to avoid such problems in the future.

Kind of like our Immigration laws, huh?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What were the police supposed to do? The law was broken. I am very happy that the charges were dropped but police are paid to uphold the laws on the books, no matter how stupid they are. Should the police decide which laws to enforce and which to not enforce? A real dilemma. Obviously the law should, if possible, be rewritten to avoid such problems in the future.

Maybe the law was stupid and to enforce it blindly was even worse. What's does it say about law enforcement and the state of New Jersey when they have no discretion?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Maybe the law was stupid and to enforce it blindly was even worse. What's does it say about law enforcement and the state of New Jersey when they have no discretion?

Law enforcement in every state faces the same dilemma. Just last week someone here in Texas told me that he called the police to report kids spray painting graffiti somewhere. Police basically said they had better things to do than go after such "criminals". Minor crimes go unpunished all the time. Probably in NJ too. But you can't blame a cop for doing his job.

[IIFFOFRDB]

[IIFFOFRDB]