Our militias could definitely stand to be regulated better

[eridani]

Arkansas man shoots and kills firefighter trying to help him

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/arkansas-man-shoots-and-kills-firefighter-trying-to-help-him/

Adams, 29, had responded to a report that a man had suffered a seizure and collapsed in suburban Little Rock, police said.

“We’re still interviewing witnesses, trying to put together what happened,” said Captain Carl Minden of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Department.

Adams lived a short distance from the man he was trying to help, Minden said. The name of the shooter was not disclosed.

An ambulance driving through a winter storm took Adams to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Adams worked for the Sherwood, Arkansas, fire department and was a volunteer firefighter in a nearby unincorporated area where the shooting occurred

Texas Man Accidentally Shoots Himself In The Foot In Church

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-man-accidental-shooting

A man accidentally shot himself in the foot in a church in Sulphur Springs, Texas, on Wednesday evening, police told the Longview News-Journal.

The man accidentally discharged his pistol in the Davis Street Baptist Church's family life center, according to the News-Journal. He sustained minor injuries, and nobody else was hurt, police said.

Texas' new open carry law went into effect in at the beginning of this year. The law allows private businesses to ban the open carry of firearms. And the Catholic diocese in the state is putting up signs noting that its churches have banned weapons.

[newfie11]

1. This country has gone nuts

Guns are not toys boys! If you want to play gunslinger learn how to respect what they can do!
Maybe don't have a damn bullet in the chamber.

My heart goes out to the EMS fellow and his family. What a screwed up world!

[Keefer]

2. I don't think regulated means

what you think it means.

[safeinOhio]

3. Please explian the meaning.

I don't understand what you are saying.

[Keefer]

4. This explains it best

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

[safeinOhio]

5. Yes, but I don't see your point

"1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

As one who has worked on 18th century clocks, one must have the correct parts in the correct place for it to run in a regulated manner. Even a true sun dial must be in the exact position with the correct markings and measurements to work in a well regulated and accurate way
So lets create a clock that is thrown together with individuals from all over throwing in any kind of part that they have. Then have those parts put in any kind of order and not having one person in charge of the endeavor

I think, as a person that has tinkered with a lot of clocks, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

[Keefer]

6. My point is...

when the second amendment was written, 'well regulated' didn't mean a host of rules written by the government. It meant "in proper working order" or "functioning correctly."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. If I may intrude on your exchange

Our militia, being divided into two classes, consists in greater part of the unorganized militia per 10 U.S. Code § 311 (b) (2):

"the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

The organized militia would require training in tactics for units of various sizes, means of military communications, understanding of a chain of command and familiarization with related information such as the UCMJ. These topics are points of information which can be learned by reading or lectured instruction. becoming a useful marksman is more expensive, time consuming and requires one-on-one work time with another skilled, practiced marksman. This is experience best taught to a young person by a parent or older sibling at least in the 18th through early 19th centuries. While training in these skills are available today for hire at local ranges, they still require the type of extended practice, safety habit development and muscle memory training that is usually not mastered in a time as short as basic training.

I began training learning to shoot a rifle during the Summer before my 16th birthday. I practiced at a range maintained by and located inside a nearby National Guard armory. I was able to practice once a week, and infrequently, twice. Two or three times from then until I started college, I went once or twice a year for a practice course that lasted a couple days.

My college admission counselor asked about my experience in sports during high school and directed me to speak to an Army ROTC Captain who was in charge of the rifle team. As an incoming freshman my skills needed further practice and development. By the end of freshman year after practicing an average of 3 times a week, I was able to qualify for all three teams and improved my scores over the remaining years.

IMHO spending 30-40 minutes twice a day every other day for 8-12 months makes one a safe and effective "well-regulated" shooter. The skill you can develop in hitting a target at a distance in a fixed position with limited distractions takes a bit; honing that skill with nearby distractions takes longer. Developing the muscle habit of not ever covering the trigger inadvertently takes a long time. Stress like having folks shooting back at you is what contributes to friendly fire casualties. Experience is the only thing that will make you safer in battle. If I were in the infantry in a rifle company, I would feel safer if the folks around me had been shooting since they were about as tall as the rifle I was holding. Just my two cents.

[safeinOhio]

18. revised in 1903

The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

So, no guns for women and all of us over 45.

While some gun owners have training and are or at least attempt to be responsible, most are not. Anyone can buy a firearm without any training at all.

[beevul]

30. Amendment 2 does not authorize regulating the militia...

Amendment 2 does not authorize regulating the militia, governments authorization and granted power over the militia is located in the constitution, rather than the bill of rights.

Amendment 2 authorizes nothing, and restricts only government.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. I addressed the meaning of the 2A in light of...

...a contemporaneous law which expressed that ALL free and independent persons were part of the militia and, as such, assumed to be owners of the regular accoutre ma of the army and organized militia. Suggesting that the law has changed does nothing in the way of interpreting the Founder's intentions nor the common understanding of the phraseology used in the day the amendment was written.

It is also my contention that any restriction of the common ability of an individual to provide for his/her own personal defense and for that of his/her family, impairs the fundamental right to life expressed in the Declaration of Independence as a reason for the country's founding.

I'm not arguing for the freedom to own an armed Ohio class sub. I'm not arguing for the freedom to own an M-2 belt fed .50 cal machine gun. Personal small arms are used day-to-day by law enforcement and private citizens alike for self-defense. A right to life IS a right to self-defense and small arms are a common means.

While some gun owners have training and are or at least attempt to be responsible, most are not. Anyone can buy a firearm without any training at all.

Can you somehow justify that most gun owners are either untrained, irresponsible or both? That is my inference from what you said.

[Igel]

7. Well equipped and/or trained.

Not "under tight control by politicians or their delegates and with a lot of rules, requirements, and restrictions."

Language change happens.

[safeinOhio]

8. So, in the 18th century context

Washington came out of retirement to put down one of those militias in Shay's Rebellion. It was that Federal Government that squashed this armed group of citizens.

I understand the point that, in order to regulate the Federal Government from taking away rights, people might keep firearms. That was basically put in place to prevent a large standing army. We now have that large standing army and state National Guards, making it all meaningless in the 21st century. That all died shortly after it was signed by the Shay's Rebellion and Washington crushing it.

[Keefer]

9. None of that changes the fact

that when the second amendment was written, 'well regulated' meant, and still means, "in proper working order."

[safeinOhio]

19. None of that changes, only if one does not look at context.

If we do not look at context, one may yell fire in a crowded theater.


If it means "in proper working order", as I said, to be in proper working order it must be put together properly, all the parts in the right places and have a design to it. You can toss all the clock parts in the world together and what you have is nothing that will tell time.

When the 2nd was written there were only muskets and cannons too.

[Keefer]

25. The original intent of the 2nd amendment hasn't changed.

I guess you'll have to take up any of those "muskets and cannons" concerns with the SCOTUS. As far as "put together properly" goes, if the militia is properly armed, properly trained, properly clothed, and properly fed, it's "put together properly". It doesn't take any government regulations to accomplish that.

[safeinOhio]

26. What does it take

just buying a 22 at a gun show and boom you are in? You said " properly armed, properly trained, properly clothed, and properly fed,". Now how will that be the case?

[Keefer]

27. Whatever the militia decides are

their rules are, those are the rules. If the militia decides to arm themselves with .22's, then that's properly armed. If they decide Kalashnikovs are better than .22's, then that's what they consider properly armed. As far as clothing goes, if they decide shorts and t-shirts are appropriate, then that's properly clothed. Apply that same guidance to food, training, and any other aspect of of that particular militia.

[jmg257]

41. Which militia are they?? Surely not the Constitutional militias - those

are mentioned quite clearly in Article 1 and the 2nd Amendment; and Congress is to provide for organizing, arming and discipling & training them...to ensure they are well regulated (i.e. Effective).

Some yahoos getting together making their own rules, deciding they'll wear what they want, and arm themselves however they feel like may call themselves "a militia", but they are certainly not the militia of the several states.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. The government sometimes squelches seditious speech but that doesn't abrogate the 1A.

[safeinOhio]

11. If you want to defend

the 2nd on context, you have to defend the whole Constitution on context. That'd be 18th century as well as 21st century.

In the Shay's Rebellion, it was much more than free speech that was squelched by G. Washington, it was a citizens militia, and in context, it was the 18th century.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Neither Shay's nor Washington's actions hold any bearing on others or the context of the 2A

[safeinOhio]

13. I'd beg to differ

as it puts into context the Federal power over citizen militias. They are only good until the Feds agree with them. That would be even more the case today.

Then there is the question of the 2nd even mentioning self-defense. In that respect the states have tremendous rights to regulate firearms in the home and outside the home.

[safeinOhio]

14. All of this is in response to

to post #2, which is a comment on the context of the wording of the 2nd. Using that argument it would follow, using context for the 2nd, one would almost have to find the 2nd not relevant at all today as we have firmly decided to have standing a standing army.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Title 10 USC Section 311 would disagree with your assertion.

Standing army or not the government apparently seeks to retain the legal antecedent to call out a citizen militia in times of extremity.

[safeinOhio]

20. Refers to National Guards

unless you want to point out the exact wording in 311 that states all men between 17 and 45 may be called out and any example of it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Emphasis mine --

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[safeinOhio]

24. and as amended in 1958 and 1993

there are no provisions for those not under organized militias.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. Citation please.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. The 1958 and 1993 amendments do not strike the provisions of the unorganized militia --

Amendments

1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–160 substituted “members” for “commissioned officers”.

1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–861 included female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

If anything, they broaden the provision by expanding who is considered a member of the unorganized militia by first including female officers (1958), where previously they were not incorporate and then expanding female participation from female officers to all female members of the National Guard (1993).

[safeinOhio]

32. Only those of or retired

from the organized militia.

the others have been disregarded for well over 100 years.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. There are no expiration dates for law to be invoked.

You've already wildly misrepresented the nature of the 1958 and 1993 amendments to the law; now you're claiming without precedent that laws somehow magically cease to be of effect just because they have not been employed.

An agenda that relies on fiction cannot endure, nor should it.

[beevul]

34. Yep.

An agenda that relies on fiction cannot endure, nor should it.

Yep.

I'd characterize todays gun control agenda, with few exceptions, as one such agenda.

And I'd wager that tens of millions of voters would agree.

[safeinOhio]

36. Really

Even most NRA members, along with most gun owners agree with that agenda...background check on all sales.

[beevul]

38. Yes. Really.

Even most NRA members, along with most gun owners agree with that agenda...background check on all sales.

I very much doubt it.

In fact, every time I see background checks pushed, its in relation to a crime which they would not have stopped. You aren't...under the impression that this wins voter support, are you?

You anti-gun folks don't seem to actually have any real world examples of why private sales are a problem, and certainly I'm not seeing any epidemic of them, and with all the daily driveby posts, its not like you guys aren't trying. I think if it was explained to "most nra members along with most gun owners" that this is essentially a solution in search of a problem, they wouldn't be willing to support it for free.

In the spirit of 'compromise' what are you willing to give up in order to get universal background checks passed, and why?

[safeinOhio]

39. I think we'll find out in November.

Every Dem is for background checks and it looks to me our Dem, be it anyone of the three will get to nominate at least one or more to the SC and and those 5 to 4 and those activist out of controller judges will be gone. Once again the 2nd will be seen as a community right and not an individual right. Like it has historically been.

Where were all those compromises when out of controller CCW and open carry laws were passed? Now will come those compromises. Unless Trump or Cruz get elected, yuk, yuk.

[gejohnston]

40. your history is wrong

it has never been a community right, and has never been viewed as such outside of a Kansas Supreme Court Decision over one hundred years ago and maybe a few lower courts. It has always been an individual right.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

Where were all those compromises when out of controller CCW and open carry laws were passed?

That is regaining ground lost to the Klan supporting restrictions in the 1920s.

Do you know what a activist judge is? One who makes a decision you don't like. Actually, it is one who makes a decision based on ideology, not the law or facts.
Trump won't get the nomination, and Bloomberg will run as an independent. You saw it here first.

[safeinOhio]

42. I'll take Justice Stevens and the ACLU

over your NRA inspired magazine any day as a source on legal history.

Justice Stevens’ strongly worded dissent from the decision, seconded by three of his colleagues, is the basis for his newly proposed amendment. He contended that the individual’s right to have a weapon was originally codified for the sake of maintaining provincial and local militias. Nowhere does constitutional history justify the wholesale protection of personal firearm usage. Therefore, regarding the right to self-defense in the District of Columbia v. Heller, Stevens’ wrote that “there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”

Also go to ACLU.org for history of the 2nd.

[gejohnston]

44. Stevens gave no evidence to back up the claim

and no scholarship behind it. That makes it activist. Also, the BoR is a set of negative rights, which means it limits the government and grants nothing to anyone. Besides, why would a collective right, an alien concept at the time be in the BoR?

Yes, it does. It is also has precedence in other cases.

The source doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the argument and the source behind it. Mine provided citations to back up their claim, complete with links so the reader can check it out for themselves. That alone gives it more weight than what some lawyer scribbles on a Jr high level.
The fact that the ACLU decides to cling to a discarded view that didn't exist a century ago doesn't impress me at all.

[safeinOhio]

55. Yep, ole Justice Stevens doesn't know anything

about the law. Bet you could teach him a thing or two.

Stevens retired as the third-longest-serving justice in the history of the Court with 34 years, six months service. The longest-serving is his immediate predecessor, Justice William O. Douglas, who served 36 and a half years. Stevens is also the second-oldest justice, aged 90 years and two months at retirement, in the Court's history behind Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who retired at the age of 90 years and 10 months. In July 2015, Stevens became the longest-lived retired justice, surpassing Stanley Forman Reed, who died at age 95 years and 93 days.

On June 26, 2015, Stevens attended the Court's announcement of the opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges,[20] in which the Court held that state recognition of same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment.

wikipidia

[gejohnston]

56. I didn't say he didn't know anything about the law

I said his reasoning on that subject sucked, and so did the seventh circuit when they said the GCA violated the second amendment rights of undocumented immigrants.

[safeinOhio]

57. I know , you are more

in line with Scalia and Thomas on most issue. Now there are some fine legal minds. What did Thomas write about it?

[gejohnston]

58. you are making a false assumption

based on nothing. Wake me up when you have a valid argument.

[safeinOhio]

43. Here is a great explanation of the NRA changing the Constitution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment



How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

* * *

Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.

What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.
Cut to 1977. Gun-group veterans still call the NRA’s annual meeting that year the “Revolt at Cincinnati.” After the organization’s leadership had decided to move its headquarters to Colorado, signaling a retreat from politics, more than a thousand angry rebels showed up at the annual convention. By four in the morning, the dissenters had voted out the organization’s leadership. Activists from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pushed their way into power.

[gejohnston]

45. Sorry, he is wrong

and it isn't an excellent anything other than a middle school essay or an op ed for People Magazine. It offers no citations, context, or anything else than "because I said so". Half of the op ed was about Citizens United.
What you called the "NRA inspired site" does at least provide valid evidence. This is political opinion written by a lawyer.
Notice your article does not cite the cases involved so others can look them up for context. That shows dishonesty etc. The case in TN, was it simply an argument made in a brief? Part of the winning or losing side? Was it a question asked to one of the litigants? Does the quote even exit.
In short, while you might agree with his view, it is little more than high school level opinion piece. I go with the scholarship, the higher quality the better and take it wherever it goes. That is because I'm a liberal. Part of being a liberal is being free of all dogma be it from the left or the right.
to add
Question, why does the NFA put what was then a high tax instead of simply banning the covered weapons? Answer, because the supporters believed a ban would be overturned. In fact, lower courts did rule NFA to be unconstitutional on its way to Miller, who simply said that a SBS wasn't protected because nobody provided evidence that it was military weapon. If everyone agreed that it wasn't an individual right, then why didn't the NFA simply ban the weapons?

Oh, and neither the NRA or the Brady Campaign wanted any part of Heller.

[safeinOhio]

46. Then try these and let me know if you need more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/burton-newman/the-nras-fraud-fabricatio_b_3103358.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opinion/ct-sta-mcgrath-gun-rights-st-0607-20150605-story.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman

http://fair.org/article/gun-control-the-nra-and-the-second-amendment/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/02/nras_constitutional_fraud_the_truth_behind_the_right_to_bear_arms/

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/more-on-the-second-amendment-and-the-nras-fraudulent-stands/

https://riversong.wordpress.com/the-nra-story/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership

http://www.lern-doch-englisch.de/engram/topics/nra/amendment2.htm

[DonP]

49. LOL!!! Mother Jones, Daily Kos, Huff Po, Wikipedia?

Nice bunch of pop culture sources you got there.

How about some from an actual published and qualified legal source; Lawrence Tribe? Alan Dershowitz?

A retired judge's Op Ed and an ACLU opinion have about as much legal weight as any five random people on the #151 bus.

But, as they say, opinions are like body parts, everybody has one and Heller and McDonald are the Law of the Land and the likelihood of SCOTUS taking a case to overturn their previous opinion is slim to none for 40+ years or so.

[gejohnston]

53. they all have the exact same flaw

The MJ piece simply interviews the first guy. Kos depends on an Burger's screed in Parade Magazine.

My point was QUALITY not groupthink and stupid bloggers skirting plagerism.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. So, from this passage --

A man...might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms.

First, the court is addressing the issue of concealed weapons when it writes --

much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane

The case seeks to address the appellant's rights under the Texas state constitution, not the federal constitution of the United States as a whole.

Moreover, the ruling actually reaffirms the individual right to keep arms but upholds the right of the state to legislate against keeping arms in a concealed manner 9a rather awkward fact considering gun control advocates demand that no arms be carried openly) --

In the first article of the Constitution of this State, containing a declaration of rights, sec. 26, it is declared, "That the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence."

This declaration, it is insisted, gives to every man the right to arm himself in any manner he may choose, however unusual or dangerous the weapons he may employ; and thus armed, to appear wherever he may think proper, without molestation or hindrance, and that any law regulating his social conduct, by restraining the use of any weapon or regulating the manner in which it shall be carried, is beyond the legislative competency to enact, and is void.

The Brennan center is citing the Texas Supreme Court out of context. Here is a rather telling excerpt --

The section under consideration, in our bill of rights, was adopted (p.158)in reference to these historical facts, and in this point of view its language is most appropriate and expressive. Its words are, "The free white men of this state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence." It, to be sure, asserts the right much more broadly than the statute of first William and Mary. For the right there asserted, is subject to the disabilities contained in the act of Charles the second. There lords and esquires, and their sons and persons, whose yearly income from land amounted to one hundred pounds, were of suitable condition to keep arms. But, with us, every free white man is of suitable condition; and, therefore, every free white man may keep and bear arms. But to keep and bear arms for what? If the history of the subject had left in doubt the object for which the right is secured, the words that are employed must completely remove that doubt. It is declared that they may keep and bear arms for their common defence. The word "common" here used, means according to Webster; 1. Belonging equally to more than one, or to many indefinitely. 2. Belonging to the public. 3. General. 4. Universal. 5. Public. The object then, for which the right of keeping and bearing arms is secured, is the defence of the public. The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution. The words "bear arms" too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.

A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative (p.159)use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?

Emphases mine.

Taking their citation with their intent then we are presented with a couple of issues --

First, the 2A reads, "the right of the people to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Brennan Center, like so many gun control advocates, omits what is inconvenient. Even if a person does not bear arms they are still explicitly at liberty to keep arms.

Second, if carrying a gun -- even for hunting -- is not the same as bearing arms then bearing arms appears to refer to the use of arms, not for hunting but for armed hostilities.

According to the Brennan Center's interpretation what they claim the TXSC is saying is the right of the people to engage in armed hostilities with weapons in common use and best suited for warfare against even encroachments by government shall not be infringed.

Perhaps the Brennan Center and its acolytes would do better to reconsider the full implications of their arguments rather than relying on the ignorance of their audience.

The full text of the ruling can be found here -- http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html

[safeinOhio]

48. You don't like the source of the article?

I didn't find guncite all that unbiased.

So, scroll down all of the links above.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. Guncite merely carries the text of the ruling your article cited.

Your article lacked the integrity or scholarship to provide a case citation. Feel free to demonstrate where guncite has incorrectly quoted the ruling.

However, I argued against you article based on reasoning, not dismissal of the source. The Brennan Center has every appearance of being engaged in intellectual fraud. Considering your own demonstrated behavior in this thread of claiming sections of the law had been amended to be stricken when just the opposite is the reality or laws somehow magically cease to be in effect if unused I can't help but think the BC's fraud is to be overlooked in your eyes.

As for your gish gallop of links --

The Huffington Post link makes many claims and cites many people -- including Ramsey Clark of all souls -- who are aopposed to gun ownership but for all its braying it offers no court cases.

Mother Jones is very anti-gun but the real Mother Jones lead groups of armed citizens against the government and hired strike breakers.

You have a couple of blogs included but, so what?

I'll continue my perusal at my convenience.

[beevul]

54. If we can't find out now, how will we in november?

Every Dem is for background checks...

That doesn't make them necessary, or mean that theres a real world problem - real world, as in outside the minds of anti-gun idealogues - that needs solving in the first place. You didn't really think your lack of enthusiasm on discussing that subject went unnoticed, did you?

Once again the 2nd will be seen as a community right and not an individual right. Like it has historically been.

Amendment 2 is a restriction on government which contains no specificity where individual or collective exercise of the right is concerned. So you are wrong, and that undeniable fact proves it.

Where were all those compromises when out of controller CCW and open carry laws were passed?

They're called the national firearms act of 1934, the gun control act of 1968, and so on and so on.

And we aren't done balancing the scales for their heft just yet either.

Now will come those compromises. Unless Trump or Cruz get elected, yuk, yuk.

Yeah, right after you find a way to do away with pro-gun Democrats, namely the ones that get elected to office. I suppose you could vote for Bloomberg, since that would dovetail with his anti-gun ideology, since that seems to be his goal as well.

[Duckhunter935]

31. please post a link showing this?

for some reason that does not seem to be true.

[Eleanors38]

17. My neighbor's cat and I can call ourselves a "militia," like fundy bundy. Doesn't make it so.

[safeinOhio]

21. Sorry, unless your cat and you

are males between the age of 17 to 45.

[Eleanors38]

22. But the ASPCA called up us!

Isn't that the outfit that calls out the militia?

[MisterP]

35. missed one

A North Carolina man is in custody after being accused of executing a Good Samaritan who tried to help him after spinning out in his car during the massive East Coast blizzard, the Charlotte Observer reports.

Marvin Jacob Lee, 27, was driving on Friday night when his car skid out due to weather conditions. Three men in a passing truck got out to help him, as did some neighbors in the area. But Lee began acting erratic and belligerent, prompting the Good Samaritans to back off and call police.
...
But as they tried calling authorities, Lee allegedly took out an automatic pisto(l) and began shooting at them.

The people who had been trying to help Lee started running away from the gunfire, but one man was struck and fell. The victim, identified by authorities as Jefferson Heavner, 26, was on the ground when Lee stood over him and shot him “numerous times,” the Observer reports.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/nc-man-accused-of-executing-good-samaritan-trying-to-help-him-with-stalled-car-in-blizzard/

[eridani]

37. Jesus effing Keerist!! n/t

[Binkie The Clown]

51. America's gunslinger mentality makes us look like fools to the rest of the world. n/t

[rjsquirrel]

52. But but but

Open carry nuts insist this stuff never happens.

[TeddyR]

60. What does this shooting have to do with open carry?

Seems like a super-huge leap of logic to equate this with open carry laws.

[rjsquirrel]

61. The argument

is that armed people are sane, polite, and rational to each other.

It has everything to do with why an armed society is a dangerous one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. Sane, polite and rational people are sane, polite and rational.

Some of them prefer to possess firearms as a contingency against those who are not.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. "Open carry nuts insist this stuff never happens." Feh- mere Colonism on your part:

Sergeant Colon had a broad education. He´d been to the school of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me.

Terry Pratchett, Jingo