[quote=harvey]
The 2nd Amendment was intended to give the local militias – which existed at the time – the power to resist the federal government. Militias were military units, “well regulated” as in having a chain of command, etc.
[/quote]Nope.. and the Supreme Court disagrees with you. That is also why the wording is regulate not outfit, supplied or prepaired – all words available to the Founding Fathers. This is also why the Supreme Court found it to be an individual right – and did not require being in a militia to exercise.
[quote=harvey]
The 2nd Amendment makes perfect sense when one considers the words that were actually written, words like “militia” and “well regulated” – words that today’s gun “enthusiasts” have removed in their own minds through the most convoluted of arguments (The arguments always start with “read the Federalist Papers”, lol …)
[/quote]
I have not ignored those words, I have actually researched the terms and made sure I was clear on meaning — and I would suggest reading them. Hamilton refers to “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped”. Hamilton was actually dead set against a standing army and wanted something more like the Swiss model. He also reasoned why it needed to be “the People at Large”. While it may no longer be feasible to use a Swiss style model for the United State (which is an argument in itself) his reasoning as to why “the people at large” were to be armed still stands. We can trust those that live with and among us as brothers, neighbors, co-workers more than we can trust those that have no direct contact (Hamilton is wordier on this)
[quote=harvey]
Trump’s comments were clearly meant to imply that some arbitrarily defined group – “the 2nd amendment people” – can change the outcome of a lawful, constitutionally-defined process, because they have weapons. Not “the majority” that just voted for the other candidate, but the minority of Americans who always look to guns as the answer.[/quote]You went off the rails at the ‘because’ on the first sentence. They can change the outcome if they decide to vote solely by the 2nd Amendment wedge issue.
[quote=harvey]
Trump made the suggestion that those who have the tools and willingness to use violence can overrule the peaceful mechanisms of our government.
[/quote] Now you are really off the rails here, and not supported by any facts at hand. He never said go and get your guns 2nd amendment people. Remember – this is an election.
[quote=harvey]
Scardey isn’t twisting your words. You are twisting them pretty well yourself.[/quote]
Sorry but that is not supported by facts at hand.
NOTE: You might want to quote the section you are addressing than a ‘reply all’ style of quote. The latter really gums up the reading of postings. I take the time to address each point and to cut out parts I am not addressing so that there is not a huge nested series of quotes. In fact, both scardey and you are not directly countering points and are instead ‘yelling into the air’ “you’re wrong, you’re wrong…” – not very constructive or creative.
