What a piece of work is Bloomberg?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/24/mayor ... ld-go-on-s

When he says "go on strike", I wonder if means the ones protecting his dumbass, too.

Mayor Bloomberg Says Cops Should Go On Strike Until Americans Give Up Their Guns

Doesn't everyone have a private army? Cops are for the commoners & even then they know what laws pertain to what people, if your sitting on top looking down it's hard to see that some actually have to work their butts off to make a living. They do however know that it wouldn't be one of their equals that would try to do physical harm to them so cops are needed but if they don't have guns even less would be.

We have to do something about gun controls. Police license okay for hunting rifle or pistol for anyone without crim or pscho record. No more

......tweeted by Rupert Murdcoch from inside a bullet proof car surrounded by 20 armed guards.

"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."

I like guns. I don't own one and don't intend to because of the hassle. I am delighted that my neighbor carries one as i trust his judgement.

The amendment refers to militia and security of the state as the reasons to permit gun ownership.

Militia implies military weapons while security could certainly include hand guns. I don't see where hunting weapons enter into it at all as a justification for ownership, at least as concerns the 2nd amendment.

My concern is with the crazies and how to stop them without infringing the rights of others.

franco b wrote:My concern is with the crazies and how to stop them without infringing the rights of others.

You can't.

franco b wrote:Militia implies military weapons while security could certainly include hand guns. I don't see where hunting weapons enter into it at all as a justification for ownership, at least as concerns the 2nd amendment.

The Second Amendment only mentions arms not firearms. How do you get military weapons out of all of this?

As I said, you can't think in today's terms you have to get a mindset back then. That was even before the Blue Laws & the local supermarkets didn't have a fully stocked cooler & freezer section, the ability to hunt for meat was basically the only way to put meat in their diet. Hard to believe but not everyone could afford to run out for a Big Mac no matter how hard the attack, it doesn't specify hunting but I bet it was a consideration. You can throw in your own unrealistic meanings when you want a fully automatic weapon which they could never have dreamt of but you can't accept the concept of hunting. Go ahead & claim to want to follow the Constitution the way most of you want to cheery pick the meanings you want & ignore the conditions of that time.

samhill wrote:As I said, you can't think in today's terms you have to get a mindset back then. That was even before the Blue Laws & the local supermarkets didn't have a fully stocked cooler & freezer section, the ability to hunt for meat was basically the only way to put meat in their diet. Hard to believe but not everyone could afford to run out for a Big Mac no matter how hard the attack, it doesn't specify hunting but I bet it was a consideration. You can throw in your own unrealistic meanings when you want a fully automatic weapon which they could never have dreamt of but you can't accept the concept of hunting. Go ahead & claim to want to follow the Constitution the way most of you want to cheery pick the meanings you want & ignore the conditions of that time.

The 2A as absolutely, positively, nothing whatsoever to do with hunting.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Jpete, you can't get by the need for hunting then because it's not directly addressed but you have no problem ignoring the well regulated militia which is directly stated. Sorry I ever mentioned my opinion.
Here's what your hero thinks. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profil ... Amendment/

samhill wrote:Jpete, you can't get by the need for hunting then because it's not directly addressed but you have no problem ignoring the well regulated militia which is directly stated. Sorry I ever mentioned my opinion.
Here's what your hero thinks. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profil ... Amendment/

You apparently stopped at the bit that supported your view and didn't make to the end of the first sentence.

...but that they also understood the need for each person to protect themselves and the need for the populace to overthrow a potential tyrannical government.

OF COURSE they needed guns for hunting. But they didn't fight the revolution against the local PETA chapter. They didn't write the constitution to protect the right to hunt.

They fought the revolution against one of the worlds super powers in order to govern their own lives.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord wasn't about putting food on the table and to suggest that it might be is pure foolishness.

About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were ordered to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Dr. Joseph Warren alerted the colonists of this. The Patriot colonists had received intelligence weeks before the expedition which warned of an impending British search, and had moved much, but not all, of the supplies to safety. They had also received details about British plans on the night before the battle, and information was rapidly supplied to the militia.

http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/ba ... x?battle=1

coaledsweat wrote:The Second Amendment only mentions arms not firearms. How do you get military weapons out of all of this?

Arms are whatever a militia is commonly armed with which certainly but not always includes firearms. An air militia would have armed aircraft.

What did they do Jpete, call up the Army, Navy, Air Force Marines & Coast Guard to protect all the worthless takers that want everyone else to fight their battles for them? Like I said before guns were needed for everyday hunting but I guess I was wrong once again they all had plenty of meat that they bought with their food stamps. God! I hope the crap never hits the fan in this country, there will be nothing but more larger piles of crap everywhere trying to cut a special deal. I'll admit I was wrong in my opinion, I'm done with this I'm gonna go out for a breakfast sandwich with meat.

You really are letting your emotions get away with you Sam.

If it rains tomorrow, you're going to try to blame that on me as well.

This isn't about me. This is about the 2A. And you're dead wrong about why it's there. I'm sorry that bothers you.

Like I said, as you were there you should know, I'm done.

If you can find anything saying that the 2A protects the right to hunt, then I'll believe you. Until then, I'll leave you with George Washington.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Washington