Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

The Constitution demands that we have a militia. Period.

That Constitution allow militia I see no where that it demand them.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

...

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

"18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the law directs.

"19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss9.html

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss11.html

The one that we used to save u from Hitler,
or the one that we used to rescue u from the Kaiser ?

Yes, that's the one. It could quite adequately supersede
local "militia", unless you have other information?

I see you avoided the point with your stupid cheap shot.

Political & jurisprudential principles continue to apply,
like the principles of math.

Thay remain timeless.

Which avoids another point.

Every modern state repeals out-dated laws, or rewrites them.

That's marvellous.

"A cruel and deadly hoax"- Bill Moyers, talking about Second Amendment rights.

Some telling statistics there...but what does truth matter, when prejudices are being aired?

Well, in theory, the militia is everyone who can defensively lift a gun,
the armed body politic...

And third, there is no harm being done to the nation by ordinary Americans exercising their right to carry guns for self defense.

But if there actually were such harm being done, that would just be too bad, because our Constitutional rights take precedent.

My bet is that you wish a complete and total disarming of the population to make putting in a police state a far easier task.

The NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said in his four-page plea for cash that President Obama’s re-election would result in the “confiscation” of weapons and a possible ban on semi-automatic weapons. “The future of your Second Amendment rights will be at stake,” the letter said. “And nothing less than the future of our country and our freedom will be at stake.”
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/gun-control-of-paranoia-and-bromides/

Quote:

And third, there is no harm being done to the nation by ordinary Americans
exercising their right to carry guns for self defense.

But if there actually were such harm being done,
that would just be too bad, because our Constitutional rights take precedent.

the paranoia inspired by the NRA is now emerging....

to protect it
and to preserve your Constitutional rights from liberal rape.

What you should consider Dave is that we are all vulnerable to a lethal attack.

But what seems to be the case is that if we agree to pretend we are not vulnerable we become less vulnerable and the more vulnerable we allow ourselves to believe we are the more vulnerable we become. Thus your position increases your vulnerability which feeds on itself. You create increased vulnerability by refusing to put your felt vulnerability, which is always there in everyone to an extent, , out of your mind.