Is anyone’s legitimate interpretation of the second amendment about hunters and sportsmen?
There is no logical connection there.
It just occurred to me while I was out running an errand a minute ago that Hillary’s health care plan was toast, IIRC, by the time Bill Clinton passed on getting Bin Laden, so I retract that comment.
… wait, does Bosnia have a second amendment? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Kill the hijack.
No sh*t!
Yeah, you’ll see that so often in history, governments just deciding randomly to grant freedoms to the masses without any pressure.
More sophomoric babbling from a gun-mentalist? Who’d have guessed?
Perhaps you’ll enlighten the board. How exactly are your freedoms any more hard won than our own? Don’t you think the US government could crush any budding insurrection in an instant? Given that, how exactly are your freedoms not granted to you by your government?
Let’s play pretend. Suppose Obama gets elected and somehow manages to severely restrict access to guns. What are you going to do, as a gun fanatic? Cause an uprising?
SB, I certainly see the logical inconsistency of Obama’s (and our discussed probable Supremes’) position on interpreting an individual right and then regulating military capable weapons more stringently than weapons with less military capability. Tell me though, is McCain on record as supporting the significant reduction of regulations around military capable weapon individual ownership? Which Presidential contenders have taken that position?
Whilst he was mispoking in the Oval Office, perhaps?
Credit for the weak but funny pun to Private Eye!
SB, I’ve researched it a bit myself and found that McCain is a bit more consistent: He is against current assault weapon restrictions and restrictions against armor piercing bullets but is “open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.” And I can understand how that lesser inconsistency may be important to you.
I like consistency too even when the conclusion goes against what I believe to be practical policy. I suspect however that gun rights/gun control and proper interpretation of the Second will not be a major issue this cycle. When does the court release its ruling in the DC case? Perhaps some comments will be made then but that is it. Obama and McCain both seem to agree that there is an individual right and that such a right is subject to some regulation, as does the court. The issue remains what regulation is reasonable and should be most protected. I see no one in public life arguing that military capable weapons should be most protected and least regulated of all despite that being the logically consistent conclusion of an individual right in order to preserve the ability to form ad hoc militias. Nor would I suspect that such would garner much favor even among many gun enthusiasts. You are, I suspect, correct when you conclude that most gun enthusiasts care about their own personal interests more than the abstract concept of preserving the ability to rapidly form militias to fight off tyranny. That might be the most proper interpretation of the Second (I plead ignorance but I can see the point, and certainly see how it follows if you accept the individual right bit) but bluntly such capacity scares more people than stirs them I think.
… so… your user name has nothing to do with the hunting of wild Capt. Ridleys?
C’mon, man, back on topic. Bosnia. Fire away.
Oh, screw Bosnia, that’s so last week. Let’s discuss the psychic’s revelations of 3:00 a.m. phone calls to the three candidates. 
Probably only Ron Paul in this cycle. Don’t construe my criticism of Obama as a defense of McCain - I don’t support him and won’t be voting for him.
That said, nothing I’ve heard McCain say is anything near as extreme as desiring to ban 60%+ of guns (all semi-automatics).
Probably true, but it may be an issue of Obama’s presidency.
IIRC I read that it’s expected by the end of June.
That’s a pretty good assessment. However, I feel that if we can, as a majority, merely “interpret” away the constitution and just say it means what we want it to say, then it’s a useless document. For another example, the wink-wink-nudge-nudge blatant abuse of the interstate commerce clause has allowed the government to operate essentially completely out of the constitutional limitations given to it.
The constitution was designed to prevent exactly this sort of thing - it laid out in hard writing what the powers and restrictions on government were going to be, and that it was the supreme law that must always be followed. Over a few hundred years, we’ve decided that most of it is to be ignored. And so it makes me sick to hear people defend and proclaim the importance of some parts of the constitution when we completely ignore it philosophically.
Getting back to the second amendment, this means that most people will interpret what they want out of the second amendment, not what it actually says. I’m not comfortable with that even if the deliberate misinterpretation benefits me - I feel that if we don’t entirely stick to the constitution (and it includes a process for amending/changing it), and we should, the document is pretty much worthless.
As for the rest of my hijack - sorry, way out of bounds for this thread. The gun stuff already is a hijack and I took it a step further, so I’ll drop that stuff. If you want me to defend those views you can pit me if you’d like.
I do respect your position on this. Personally I still wonder what would happen if the Supremes did rule in the manner that seems logically consistent and protected effective militarily capable weapons ownership most of all. It might end up being the worst thing possible for the interests of the typical gun owner when the day was done.
But yes, it is a hijack, back to Rambo: Hillary’s Day already in progress. I’m going for popcorn.