Journal News Hires Armed Security At Their HQ

More Comments >

paperduck Male, 18-29, Midwest US 981 Posts	Friday, January 4, 2013 10:43:43 PM 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.

OldOllie Male, 50-59, Midwest US 8712 Posts	Friday, January 4, 2013 9:56:57 PM Now, why is there so much confusion about this? Seems pretty simple to understand. 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.

Gerry1of1 Male, 50-59, Western US 25558 Posts	Friday, January 4, 2013 10:40:07 AM Just so we are all clear on what it say... 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. Now, why is there so much confusion about this? Seems pretty simple to understand.

HumanAction Male, 18-29, Midwest US 1124 Posts	Friday, January 4, 2013 6:15:04 AM 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?" 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.

OldOllie Male, 50-59, Midwest US 8712 Posts	Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:59:29 PM 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?

More Comments >