Journal News Hires Armed Security At Their HQ

Submitted by: vonKaiser 4 years ago in

Remember that paper that posted the gun owner list? Well now they"ve hired Armed Security. Ironic?
There are 44 comments:
Male 1,745
I always understood the 2nd amendment as:

The right of people to bear arms is the way to ensure the militia is well-regulated. So there is no fascist police federal government exercising unauthorized power over individual states. This right of people shall not be infringed means it CANNOT be taken away.

Remember that the central theme of the constitution is that the people make up the government and can change it when necessary, the government is not a big daddy figure.

That`s why I`m uneasy about the gun restrictions ALREADY in place. Lets look at it this way, there are auto accidents all the time where people, including children die, it`s very unfortunate. But we`d never consider banning cars. Consider that the chances of you dying in a car accident are far greater than with a gun.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Now, why is there so much confusion about this? Seems pretty simple to understand.[/quote]
Gerry, we`re talking about liberals here. Their fundamental philosophy of government is antithetical to the constitution. Most of them don`t understand it, and if they do, they don`t agree with it or respect it. That`s why we`re in the shape we`re in today.
0
Reply
Male 38,468

Just so we are all clear on what it say...

[quote]AMENDMENT II
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. [/quote]
Now, why is there so much confusion about this? Seems pretty simple to understand.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]If the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, why doesn`t it say, ..."the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?"[/quote]
It isn`t and there is no room for debate on the subject. Multiple Supreme Court Cases have confirmed that the law specifies and individual right to bear arms.

Supreme Court Cases trump Ken Kiger from @MrPeabody`s link. Sorry all, but there is only one group with the authority to interpret the Constitution and they say that the 2nd Amendment applies to "the people" and not "a well-regulated milita". That`s the end of it.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
If the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, why doesn`t it say, ..."the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?"

People != Militia.

BTW, it`s not "ironic"; it`s hypocritical. "Armed protection for me, but none for thee."

What I don`t understand is, how did the security company find a self-respecting gun owner willing to take a job protecting these putrid little liberal f***tards?
0
Reply
Male 1,920
Here is an excellent explanation of the 2nd amendment as it relates to A well regulated militia
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote]What`s ironic is people writing that her publishing this information put gun holders lives in danger, then gun holders threatening bodily harm to her causing her to hire armed guards.[/quote]

Which they then hired armed guards(permit holders) to protect them. SO they only support it if it`s in their interest then yep that`s ironic.
0
Reply
Male 1,106
What`s ironic, is that the people whose names she published are probably the least likely group of people in her area that would try to harm her.
0
Reply
Male 761
It`s funny but not ironic.

What`s ironic is people writing that her publishing this information put gun holders lives in danger, then gun holders threatening bodily harm to her causing her to hire armed guards.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
CrakrJak

"Militia.. What purpose does it serve?"

You misunderstand my comment. I meant what purpose does it serve in the statement? If you say everyone has the right to a gun why specify any group?

Kind of like saying "I like watching football, I like watching all sports". If I say I like watching all sports the football part is superfluous.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: [quote]Militia.. What purpose does it serve?[/quote].

During the revolutionary war a lot of the forces used to oppose the British were not military conscripts, they were free volunteers known as `Militia`. Militia also served in the war of 1812, which is how Tennessee got it`s nickname `The Volunteer State`. To this day most states still have a volunteer militia made of ordinary citizens. So please do not get the terms `militia` and `military` confused, they are different.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HolyGod

So, for an example of a prefatory clause:

Shelter from rain, being necessary for the overall health of a citizen, the right of the people to keep and bear umbrellas shall not be infringed.

From this statement, would you then conclude that a citizen only has the right to bear an umbrella on a rainy day? This is essentially the logic you`re using.

Instead, we know that prefatory clauses serve to establish rationale. As such, they are not exclusionary as to the circumstances in which the right is provided.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]What purpose does it serve?[/quote]
It`s prefatory, as in, introductory or part of a preface. It is a common construct from that time period and similar examples can be found throughout the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and personal correspondence of the Founding Fathers.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
HumanAction

If the founding fathers wanted everyone to have guns why even put the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," part? What purpose does it serve?

If they wanted everyone to own guns wouldn`t it be better to just say: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HolyGod

Not quite... He provides further clarity in the next sentence:

[quote]the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset[/quote]
At the time you reference, neither blacks nor women were part of the political community. They currently are; therefore, via the official interpretation, the right extends to them as well.

He is very careful to ensure that he does not state "all citizens" or "all people" in his word. This was done purposefully.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
HumanAction

"In my humble opinion, my Supreme Court Justice trumps your opinion"

I understand that. I`m also pretty sure that my statement proves to both of us that he was wrong and that rights most definitely did not spread to all people and that there were caveats that the founding fathers intended whether implied or not. Agreed?
0
Reply
Male 550
I worked a long time for an industrial plant producing auto parts here in Luxemburg. After 9/11, the US based company decided to have the guards at the entrance equipped with pistols.
There was an outcry by all the plant personnel and local direction had to withdraw the procedure within two days.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Uhhuh. Tell that to black people and women.[/quote]
Hey now, I`m just quoting the statements of a Supreme Court Justice following a decision regarding the 2nd Amendment. In my humble opinion, my Supreme Court Justice trumps your opinion.

Is that fair?
0
Reply
Male 8,132
HumanAction

"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a `right` attributed to `the people` refer to anything other than an individual right."

Uhhuh. Tell that to black people and women.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
McGovern1981

"When was that the shooting being crammed down our throats to push more laws for our "saftey."

I think this is the culmination of aurora, the mall shooting, and sandy hook happening so closely together. Obviously this is the biggest one because of the fact that it is kids.

Lets drop the hypotheticals and hyperbole for a moment. I`ll ask you a straight up question.

Do you support making it so that anyone who wants to buy a gun has to pass a background check for criminal record and mental health issues and wait a mandatory waiting period? Thereby eliminating certain gun show sales and internet sales?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a `right` attributed to `the people` refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention `the people,` the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase `the militia` in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the `militia` in colonial America consisted of a subset of `the people`— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to `keep and bear Arms` in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as `the people`."

- Justice Antonin Scalia in Heller
0
Reply
Male 14,332
@HolyGod

The milita and the people are two different things clearly worded in the second amendment. It takes someone wanting to push an agenda to see that differently. Milita for a free state armed people for a free people.

[quote]I thought the aurora shooter got all his guns legally? Several over the internet with no background check? Is that incorrect? [/quote]

When was that the shooting being crammed down our throats to push more laws for our "saftey."
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]The second amendment was about having a well trained militia being armed in order to defend itself in a country with little to no defense and no police force. It did not imply soccer moms with no training should have stockpiles of weapons for anyone to take.[/quote]
Several Supreme Court cases have stated that the proper interpretation is that the militia part is merely a preparatory phrase. All cases have upheld the interpretation that the right is given to all people.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
McGovern1981

"You mean like the laws the shooter broke that day?"

I thought the aurora shooter got all his guns legally? Several over the internet with no background check? Is that incorrect?

"See the part that say THE PEOPLE there`s your answer. Amazing what you pick to see when you want to take away THE PEOPLES rights."

Yes the people should have a right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia. Is that not how you read that? What do you think the militia part is in there for if they meant everyone should have them?

I read that as: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because having a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

No?
0
Reply
Male 8,132
McGovern1981

I don`t believe he has ever said he didn`t support having guns in schools. Where is the money coming from? Do you support raising taxes to pay for armed and trained security teams at every school in the country?

Schools can`t pay for their teachers and their pencils right now because of all the slashes to school funding done mostly by republicans.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
[quote]However, the fact that you rail against any measures that might help prevent incidents like aurora or sandy hook shows how incapable you are of rational discourse.[/quote]

You mean like the laws the shooter broke that day? Yep that`s just what we need more laws!!


[quote]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[/quote]

See the part that say THE PEOPLE there`s your answer. Amazing what you pick to see when you want to take away THE PEOPLES rights.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
@HolyGod

Except that having armed gaurds dosen`t change the viewpoint just who`s holding the gun. Thereby a hypocrite.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
McGovern1981

"The second amendment was never about sporting."

The second amendment was about having a well trained militia being armed in order to defend itself in a country with little to no defense and no police force. It did not imply soccer moms with no training should have stockpiles of weapons for anyone to take.

I have never heard anyone say we should outlaw guns. I certainly don`t think that. However, the fact that you rail against any measures that might help prevent incidents like aurora or sandy hook shows how incapable you are of rational discourse.
0
Reply
Male 14,332

0
Reply
Male 3,909
This story just totally made my day!!!
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Gerry1of1

" the fact she doesn`t carry the gun any longer is irrelevant. There was time when she felt the need to exercise her right to have a gun. Now she would deny the rest of us the privilege she has enjoyed. That is hypocrisy."

You`ve never change your mind before? People aren`t allowed to change their viewpoints?

If someone used to eat meat but then they learned about how cruel animals are treated so now they advocate for animal rights that makes them a hypocrite?

Plenty of people come back from war and then work to advocate peace. That makes them hypocrites?



0
Reply
Male 14,332
I`ll keep my high capacity mags and "assault rifles" (notice the definition of those has been changed to fit agendas) ok? Thanks! If you don`t like that feel free to come and get them with happy thoughts.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
@GhettoNinja

The second amendment was never about sporting.
0
Reply
Male 886
Christ. Gun advocates are among the most dense and idiotic people I come across. You dumb holes are as stupid as most of the fanatically religious.

This is not the definition of hypocrisy at all. Most of the people named have issues with assault weapons, not handguns. They have issues with the high capacity magazines being sold.

What makes you think they would have issues with trained security having weapons?

No one can make any logical argument for the continued sales of assault rifles. Sport hunting? Pfft. Right, it doesn`t exist anymore and hunting with semi auto rifles isn`t exactly the definition of sporting.
0
Reply
Male 2,460
HG, we`ve been waiting for you to say something intelligent for some time.

This paper is just the latest example of liberal do as I say not as I do.

AS for DiFi...it might be ancient history but what`s your point? She once took some comfort in packing heat. Well how about letting somebody else have a turn?

AS fro Rosie...OK really who gives a damn about her?

You want a legitimate debate about gun control? OK here you go. Good guys should hit the target. Bad guys go bye-bye for long long time if not forever.

Go buy a f---ing tank for all I care just don`t use it for evil.

0
Reply
Male 38,468

@ HolyGod - the fact she doesn`t carry the gun any longer is irrelevant. There was time when she felt the need to exercise her right to have a gun. Now she would deny the rest of us the privilege she has enjoyed.

That is hypocrisy.
Do as I say, not as I do.
I hate that in politicians.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
0
Reply
Male 38,468

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
That`s great.
Moron writer. I won`t say "journalist" `cause publishing those names and addresses had nothing to do with journalism, just pushing a personal agenda. But I love the irony of an anti-gun advocate hiring gunmen to protect them!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
0
Reply
Male 14,332
@HolyGod

"She obtained a permit in the 70s to carry a handgun because she was the target of a terrorist group that had recently shot out the windows of her home. She doesn`t carry a gun anymore" ---- because she has armed guards.

There fixed that for ya!
0
Reply
Male 8,132
TheFatViking

"the matriarch of anti-rights advocates Diane Feinstein has a permit to carry a concealed weapon."

People keep saying this. Do you ever bother to look up anything about it yourself?

She obtained a permit in the 70s to carry a handgun because she was the target of a terrorist group that had recently shot out the windows of her home. She doesn`t carry a gun anymore.

Let`s have a legitimate debate about gun control. This kind of asinine bulls.hit is a waste of everyone`s time. Say something intelligent or shut up and let the adults talk.
0
Reply
Male 143
Hypocrites......Read the book "Do as I say, not as I do" by Peter Schweizer.....Liberals want to control everyone and everything.....yet can`t find a way to abide by what they spew.
0
Reply
Male 14,332

0
Reply
Male 202
Not Surprising in the least.
I mean the matriarch of anti-rights advocates Diane Feinstein has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
And Rosie O`donnell has armed body guards, but doesn`t think people should be allowed to own guns.

These people seem to have a sort of "rights apply to everyone except me" mentality.
0
Reply
Male 108
Link: Journal News Hires Armed Security At Their HQ [Rate Link] - Remember that paper that posted the gun owner list? Well now they`ve hired Armed Security. Ironic?
0
Reply