Senator During Gun Control Hearing: I Don’t Want to Hear About This Constitution Thing

a reply to: ketsuko

That's a possibility. ...and if so, OK. I think it's sadly mistaken...but if that's what the voters in Maryland want? Their idiots, but she'd be doin' her job.

What are the odds, though?

But possible.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Which frightens me to nearly the same degree as the prospect of Clinton being sent.

Seems very likely that I'll be voting a third party, yet again...

Ugh! When have they gone too far?? Does no one see this pig as just human handler for faceless power? What is so hard about everyone taking the day off work to burn their communities to the ground and build brand new shiny ones, NwO free?

a reply to: seagull
Maryland has a lot of retired military and federal employees. I can't believe they would say she represents them.

What is it with these community organizers who think they can brush aside the Constitution?
She wants to toss aside the very document she relied upon in her fight to save the Fells Point neighborhood?
That's priceless.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

Employees of the NRA in Congress use simplistic, black & white "constitutional" arguments to block any legislation that might have a negative impact on handgun manufacturer's profits. She is basically saying: "Let's not waste time rehashing the same thing over and over again, let's look for solutions to the current wave of violence."

But she didn't say anything remotely like that, only you did.

Maybe you could suggest this to her personally, because then she wouldn't be perceived as a complete moron, and if she meant it, would be a substantial shift from what she previously actually said.

Give her the boot, constitutionally aproved!

a reply to: xuenchen

Considering it is safer than ever before....I am all for the Constitution.

/2nd line

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: seagull

Well, she represents Maryland, so you have to take that into consideration. She may very well be voicing what her constituents believe.

A politician is supposed to represent the views of the constituency. Maybe the Senatrix is doing that.

During the War to Prevent Southern Separation, President Lincoln imprisoned every Maryland incumbent who favored the South and local governmnet. By process of elimination, Maryland was made into a big government state from then on.

Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had his military imprison tens of thousands of Northern political critics and opponents without due process; he censored all telegraph communication; shut down over three hundred opposition newspapers; imprisoned dozens of duly elected officials of the state of Maryland; participated in the rigging of Northern elections; waged war without the consent of Congress; illegally created a new state, West Virginia; and deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.

Dilorenzo, Thomas (2009-01-16). Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe (Kindle Locations 1841-1845). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

There is no gun debate...

"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."

Only people who can't read....

Going back and reading her full statement...she didn't say any of that. It is, at most, an exaggerated interpretation.

She does say she believes Obama is following the law with his executive order push, but read her actual statement as per an official government site. (I was unable to find any credible sources from OP's story. It appears made up completely...unless somebody else can find a conflicting source of the gov site.)

Her official statement in full

I also suggest you read Senator Shelby's statement that completely goes hard against Obama. I know nothing about him, but man...his speech is pretty freakin' awesome. He didn't hold back, and made excellent points.

Sen. Shelby - statement

a reply to: rival

I see no well regulated militia.

I see a bunch of yahoos who don't know a thing about guns shooting their daughter while cleaning their shotgun.

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem, and I don't really care about them. For something so important to your culture, you are severely lacking in proper education at the primary/high school levels. Gun safety classes should be a mandatory part of the curriculum.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: vor78

Don't make a mandatory training course for the possession of firearms, just make firearm safety and general management classes a mandatory part of primary and high school. Don't make these courses required for actually purchasing and obtaining firearms, and there's no opportunity for abuse. (Unless you intend on saying the kids will be brainwashed to be liberals who hate guns or something.)

Do you really think its a good idea to give adolescents access to firearms in school? Do you have any idea how many math teachers are likely to get shot?

Actually it was not so long ago...
www.freerepublic.com...

And some places still do.

www.bloomberg.com...

originally posted by: rival
There is no gun debate...

"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."

Only people who can't read....

I know, right?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: rival
There is no gun debate...

"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."

Only people who can't read....

I know, right?

regulated meant different things back then. in terms of commerce it meant to make regular. this is because under the articles of confederations states tried to screw each other in trade tarrifs, fees, taxes and even currency and scripts. so making trade regular meant making sure it happened and not making it harder to do it.

The Senator did not say that the Constitution should be ignored, or that the Constitution does not address the "right to bear arms."

The Senator did imply that the endless repetition of the false claims that the government cannot regulate any aspect of the ownership of firearms is pointless.

It is.

I am ashamed of the blatant dishonesty and/or ignorance on display here. Can you not make your points and discuss your causes while still being honest?

a reply to: seagull

Considering that Maryland holds DC and most federal employees tend to lean Democrat, then that's where I made my guess. Given the leanings of the current admin and the bureaucrats ...

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: rival
There is no gun debate...

"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."

Only people who can't read....

I know, right?

regulated meant different things back then. in terms of commerce it meant to make regular. this is because under the articles of confederations states tried to screw each other in trade tarrifs, fees, taxes and even currency and scripts. so making trade regular meant making sure it happened and not making it harder to do it.

Did militia also mean something different back then? Because Heller, et. al., not withstanding, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clearly referring to the natural requirements of a militia (and was understood as such for most of our history) ... not an unending or perpetual free-range licence to any firearm, of any type, in any number regardless of any other legal considerations.

Also, you're merely making stuff up and/or intentionally misrepresenting the truth. Here's the definition of regulated from Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary (which would have about 35 years after those words were written in the Constitution for the historically impaired):

REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

Source

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: seagull

Considering that Maryland holds DC and most federal employees tend to lean Democrat, then that's where I made my guess. Given the leanings of the current admin and the bureaucrats ...

Who were all hired after 2008?

Sometimes your logic leaves me utterly incredulous.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: rival
There is no gun debate...

"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."

Only people who can't read....

I know, right?

regulated meant different things back then. in terms of commerce it meant to make regular. this is because under the articles of confederations states tried to screw each other in trade tarrifs, fees, taxes and even currency and scripts. so making trade regular meant making sure it happened and not making it harder to do it.

Did militia also mean something different back then? Because Heller, et. al., not withstanding, the 2nd is pretty clearly referring to the natural requirements of a militia ... not an unending a perpetual free-range licence to any firearm, of any type, in any number regardless of any other legal considerations.

Also, you're merely making stuff up and/or intentionally misrepresenting the truth. Here's the definition of regulated from Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary (about 35 years after those words were written):

REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

Source

what part of that contradicts in any way what i said?

As to your first point everyone who was able was expected to have a gun, to know how to use it and was considered a part of the militia. the dudes that argued for ratification as well as the authors said exactly that as a matter of record when persuading the various states ratification bodies to ratify it.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Because you were implying that well "regulated" referred only to making things equitable in the language of the Constitution.

You implied that the Constitution does not state, quite clearly, that the right to bear arms will be REGULATED.

The right to bear arms, in the historical context, was two fold, a) there were to be no standing armies in the US and therefore, (b) the People themselves were the line of defense against aggression by natives and foreign powers. The "right" to bear a weapon was also a "responsibility" ... you may want to read up a bit more on the "dudes" that you're referring to.