Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5


REGULATION from regulate I The act of regulating
books.google.com...

1768?

To REGULATE Lat
1 To adjust by rule or method
To direct

To Direct.
Lets say "A well directed Militia" then.
Geez, and who would direct the Militia?

edit on 17-1-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)

Answer provided in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, powers enumerated to Congress...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It always amazes me those who shout about the constitution the most are the ones most unfamiliar with it.

reply to post by Indigo5


You still aren't answering my other questions.


The Militias of the time brought their own arms.
And it states that the Govt will arm the militias. I am waiting for my modern arms to be delivered.
So, Congress is supposed to provide training and such for the militias, which as defined back a little ways, is every person between 17 to 47 not in the Military.

Looks like Congress has failed in keeping the Militias trained and such.

It still doesn't state that the Govt has the right to regulate the Arms the People bear.
Just the militia when called forth.

You clearly have no grasp as to the application of laws and when they do in fact apply.
You can regurgitate a lot, which is fine. Your google-fu is really good.

But, your ability to see how it was applied, by putting forth interpretation from the Govt, which the right was put forth to defend against.
It is nice to see that you have SO much confidence in the Govt, where you allow them to dictate what a document that is simple is supposed to say.

reply to post by Indigo5



Look Even I can see you are not answering the questions posed to you. From some people. How about give them some direct answers and stop beating around the bush. Its very bad form.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5


REGULATION from regulate I The act of regulating
books.google.com...

1768?

To REGULATE Lat
1 To adjust by rule or method
To direct

To Direct.
Lets say "A well directed Militia" then.
Geez, and who would direct the Militia?

edit on 17-1-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)

Answer provided in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, powers enumerated to Congress...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It always amazes me those who shout about the constitution the most are the ones most unfamiliar with it.

And yet you miss the Militia Act and Title 10 US code that defines the militia as every able-bodied male.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by 11235813213455
How do you rectify the seemingly contradictory combination of words in the same sentence?

"well regulated" and "shall not be infringed"

Seem at odds don't they?

Not at all. You seem confused about the premise of "rights" in the constitution being absolute. They are not.

Each and every right in the "bill of rights" (first 10 amendments) is regulated.

Take speech...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do we allow pornographers to show obscene pictures on billboards? Does NBC have pornography...Do we let Ciggerette manufacturers advertise to kids on the Disney network...ad infinium.

Rights are not absolute in the United States. The bar is appropriately high when we consider restricting those rights, but the premise that they are absolute is false.

EDIT TO ADD: Now that I think about it...Speech is regulated all the time and yet has no "well regulated" qualifier in the bill of rights...and the founders opted to include "Well Regulated" int he 2nd amendment...the only right they chose to include that phrase in...what does that tell you?

edit on 17-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Here you go with your scattershot again. Your not going to squirm out of this one. Words mean things as I seemingly have to remind you because abridge and regulate are not the same thing especially in their respective contexts. Additionally we're not talking about the wording in the first were talking about the wording in the second. Lastly the circumstances concerning your favorite pastime of pornography can be valid for a separate conversation but they are no contraposition to this one.

You've been bested in the discussion so you want to move it elsewhere. Not going to happen.

Now back to the question you keep dodging. How do you rectify the seemingly contradictory combination of words in the same sentence?

Originally posted by Indigo5


Answer provided in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, powers enumerated to Congress...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It always amazes me those who shout about the constitution the most are the ones most unfamiliar with it.

This is not however the total picture or a definition of what the 2nd amendment is.

Originally posted by Indigo5


Answer provided in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, powers enumerated to Congress...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

A great lunch has brought more insight into this.
Lets break it down.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So, the Militia is supposed to defend the Laws of the Union. If this isn't just the epitome of defending the people from any group, even Govt, I don't know what is.

YOU, Indigo5, just made the argument that the 2nd Amendment is there to defend against Tyranny and the Govt if and when it gets out of hand and defies and breaks the laws of the Union. The same Union that was formed under the original documents.
So, with that, the Militia should be armed to repel and defend any and all Militaries of the world.
WHERE IS MY TANK AND ROCKET LAUNCHER. I am part of the Militia by definition.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

Ok, so where is my training from the Govt?
And where are my arms I am guaranteed?

and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States

When called up and deployed, the Govt will be in charge of the Militia.

reserving to the States respectively

To stay within the US

the Appointment of the Officers,

Yes, there shall be a leadership structure in place.

and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Congress, you have failed, yet again.


Indigo5, you have got to the most dishonest person here on ATS.

You refuse to answer direct questions, yet pitch a fit when others don't.
You throw tantrum when people don't see things your way.

You have been shown that you are wrong.

Now, will you answer the direct questions? Or deflect some more and attack on other things?

Originally posted by macman

Indigo5, you have got to the most dishonest person here on ATS.

You refuse to answer direct questions, yet pitch a fit when others don't.
You throw tantrum when people don't see things your way.

You have been shown that you are wrong.

Now, will you answer the direct questions? Or deflect some more and attack on other things?

edit on 17-1-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)

See...what I see here is attack...not questions...if you are going to throw a punch, I am apt to return the favor.

If you have a question....pose it singularly..not a rant or laundry list with emoticons, all caps etc.

And do it without nonsense or emotion...One question at a time...and I'll do my best to answer.

But given the BS that has occured thus far, I am not optimistic. The questions I have answered...you pretend I didn't or simply move the goal-posts as if you never asked.

This last bit though, you seem to be engaging on...and researching? No? To me a debate where both sides learn something is worthwhile, but we haven't had much of that.

One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

reply to post by Indigo5


I have a question for you. How do you tell emotion when someones posting words with no facial tells or voice to tell you their emotions? It is like trying to be sarcastic on the internet as well. You are making excuses up to not answer his questions it seems to me. I take the second amendment myself LITERALLY. Its that simple and it was not meant for interpretation.

Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I have a question for you. How do you tell emotion when someones posting words with no facial tells or voice to tell you their emotions? It is like trying to be sarcastic on the internet as well. You are making excuses up to not answer his questions it seems to me. I take the second amendment myself LITERALLY. Its that simple and it was not meant for interpretation.

Easy...I can tell you are not actually asking a question, but instead attempting to post something snarky and clever. You followed it by a declaration of your beliefs that was irrelevant to the rest of your post. Now you are hoping to get stars from folks that you hope will approve of you.

None of it was a sincere question...little of it at all was even directed at me...it was asking for affirmation from anonymous posters...a ploy for affirmation, validation on forum of anonymous posters...

Here...I'll edit it down for you as if you were sincere...

Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by Indigo5

 

How do you tell emotion when someones posting words with no facial tells or voice to tell you their emotions?

Tone..Insults...the 19 "emoticons" to the right of you when you post...All-caps = shouting...Bold = emphasis...and well rants and insults are just that and of course the old fashioned explanation mark and a hundred other nuances where posters both convey and understand emotion and tone....

reply to post by Indigo5


I was being serious and i was asking calmly,but you choose to seemingly troll me by saying i meant something else when i meant what i asked you word for word. I did not use any emoticons or caps except where dictated by English. Troll me again i will report you to the admin.

A long winded retort with a lot of words, but nothing to say.

I asked questions, directly to you, several times. YOU have refused to answer them.

It is plain to see by all here, that you have refused to answer simple direct questions.
Your high and mighty responses really speak to you and your character.

Originally posted by Indigo5

See...what I see here is attack...not questions...if you are going to throw a punch, I am apt to return the favor.

Uhhh, I do love a retort. Maybe make it within the context of the discussion.
How about a retort to any of the questions posed to you several times over.

Originally posted by Indigo5
If you have a question....pose it singularly..not a rant or laundry list with emoticons, all caps etc.

Oh, I get it. You throw a fit, and now seeing that others are witnessing your fit, you are trying to save some face.

I submitted my questions, 5 of them, directly to you.
Out of the 4 times I have posted them within this thread, you have refused to answer them.
Do I need to re-post them for you?

Originally posted by Indigo5
And do it without nonsense or emotion...One question at a time...and I'll do my best to answer.

Ah, the civility platform again.
The questions I posed were what, single sentence with no emoticons.
You, are not being honest........again.

Originally posted by Indigo5
But given the BS that has occured thus far, I am not optimistic. The questions I have answered...you pretend I didn't or simply move the goal-posts as if you never asked.

The questions are still posted, if you are adult enough to answer them.

Originally posted by Indigo5
This last bit though, you seem to be engaging on...and researching? No? To me a debate where both sides learn something is worthwhile, but we haven't had much of that.

Hardly, as all that you pitch is BS. I have learned loads from you. The Progressive ideals and Alinsky tactics are still practiced.

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

Oh, So now I have to post a question singular within a response.

Ok then. Lets see if you hold up to that statement.

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

1) What does
A well regulated militia. Mean to YOU, Indigo5.

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

2) What does
being necessary to the security of a free state Mean to YOU, Indigo5.

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

3) What does
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Mean to YOU, Indigo5.

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

4) What does
the right of the people to keep and bear arms Mean to YOU, Indigo5

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

5) SO, which is the evil gun.

or

or




There you go. One question at a time.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

5) SO, which is the evil gun.

None of the above. Guns are not "evil", they are objects, tools, weapons.

If you'd like to word the question differently I can give you a different answer, perhaps the one your are fishing for?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

5) SO, which is the evil gun.

None of the above. Guns are not "evil", they are objects, tools, weapons.

If you'd like to word the question differently I can give you a different answer, perhaps the one your are fishing for?

IS that the only question you are going to answer?

But, 2 of those are deemed as "assault rifles".
The Tyrant 0bama has deemed them as evil. Along with the morons in NY.
Evil I say.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5
One question...no BS...And I will answer...not responding to attacks, except in kind, and not responding to laundry list rants meant to intellectually circle jerk amongst like-minded folks.

4) What does
the right of the people to keep and bear arms Mean to YOU, Indigo5

For myself, vs. the courts or others...though there may some overlap, I choose what I beleive is the most intellectually honest definition of that phrase.

I also afford for the possibility that what it means to "ME" might not be what it means to others or the courts, and that "what it means to ME" can change if someone convinces me otherwise.

That phrase....parsed out from the rest of the context of the 2nd Amendment...Means to "ME"..

Right....similiar to speech, free assembly, the press and other "rights" enumerated in the "Bill of rights"...things which the founding fathers felt neccessary to cement at the foundation of our democracy in order to ward off the danger of Tyranny that was the standard in nearly every nation across the globe at the time.

People...It was meant to distinguish between government...whether it was an "individual" right or the more general "people" as in "Militia"...or a collective of citizenry vs. a federal army? I think it was directed at state-level collections of citizenry...in a collective form, to ward off "insurection" "Invasion" and yes, "Tyranny". Since the time the 2nd Amendment was written and the Militia act of 1792 and the other act that folled shortly after. The "people" has been morphed into "individual" as opposed to some form of organized Militia, state or armed "citizenry" in the armed majority sense. The right to "bare arms" for individual self-defense was never really a consideration for better or worse. George Washington needed "Militia" to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

Keep and bare arms....Ownership and right to carry....King george at the time disarmed his people through hunting laws...best made famous through the tales of Robin Hood and the "Kings Forrest"..."Kings Deer" etc.
Essentially all the woods belonged to the king...as well as the deer that roamed those woods. It was a manner of both controlling food and discouraging the "baring of arms" as being found in most forrests with a Musket or bow and arrow before that...without the kings express permission, could get you arrested.

That is my take on that phrase absent the context of the rest of the 2nd Amendment.

Sidenote: One of the issues that we have as a nation is that the Supreme Court hasn't actually completely ruled on the 2nd Amendment, "Speech" for example has a huge amount of case law. The closest the SCOTUS has come is the recent "Heller" ruling on the DC gun ban, which struck down the gun ban...but DC is not a "State" so they didn't settle the State vs. Fed issue...and they allowed for regulation of guns...though they did it in a weird way, not included in official "opinion"...so they kicked the can down the road. We need more court rulings/challenges to suss out the meaning as far as the law is concerned.