Seigneur,

You have declared you try to win arguments at all costs in the past. I have little time for that. Try not to play such games.

You talked of looking at the text itself, yet give it a modern interpretation.

Pace these linguists, the second amendment was following on a British and colonial tradition of private gun ownership, and would have been seen directly in this light, whatever controversial meaning some linguists gave to the term bear arms (which is a slightly different discussion from the exact meaning of the second amendment in the new republic). As has been noted by others, the Federalists, even Alexander Hamilton (who has not inaccurately called a Tory without a King), even pointed to the contemporary presumption of an armed citizenry, ready for both self-defence and defence against an overbearing state. The whole context of the Bill of Rights, meant to restrain the federal government, makes any such interpretation silly. It is simply historically dubious to see the second amendment as refering to anything but private ownership.

I'm not especially pro-gun, nor anti-gun, myself. I find both kinds of extremists silly.

You mean as opposed to the anti-federalist position? Do you know what they believed, and think them less willing to restrain the federal government than the Federalists?

If you understand the historical context, I hope you would know who the anti-federalists are and their importance in the process that led to the Bill of Rights, yet you talk of the Federalist partisan points.

I do agree, though, the fundamental issue is not one of interpretation of the American constitution.

The argument of liberals and gun-grabbers is that only the police and government need to have guns. That the government is there to protect us. We on the other hand, don't need guns. 

We now know that the Resource School Officer saw the attacker and WAITED OUTSIDE. But that is not the end of it.  Three more Broward sheriff's deputies waited outside too.  But again, that is not enough: Michael Graham, a writer over at The Federalist, points out that there is a history of cops NOT going in. 

Yes, we all are all aware of the Columbine massacre. The cops waited outside for hours before they went in. Then, understanding that this was a totally new paradigm, tactics were changed. New police training was required and things were going to change for mass shootings. 

Well, Mr. Graham points out at the Pulse Nightclub shooting, a policeman did engage the shooter but then:

"As the largest mass shooting [at that time] in modern U.S. history began to unfold, an off-duty police officer working at a gay nightclub exchanged gunfire with the suspect. But three hours passed before one of the nation’s most revered SWAT teams stormed the building and brought the attack that left 49 people and the gunman dead to an end."

The attacker went in, but the police officer remained outside. 

And we are supposed to trust the government? Yea, the government is going to protect us?

Graham continues:

"Remember Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut? “Newtown officers arrived at the school while the gunman was still shooting but did not enter the building for more than five minutes, according to a prosecutor’s report.” The state police conducted a comprehensive review of events that day, but “didn’t interview any Newtown police officers who were the first responders on the scene.” Newtown police didn’t do their own after-action report, either. What’s to review, right?

Not only did they stand outside---they NEVER reviewed their conduct! Don't look there. 

And we are to trust the government?

Ohh, let's look at Can-a-da, that sparkling oasis of liberaldom, Graham writes: 

"Up in Canada during the 1989 massacres at Ecole Polytechnique: “As officers stood outside in the snow, [the shooter] moved through the corridors looking for more women to kill.”

Stood in the snow!
Michael Graham's article: http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/23/parkland-officers-hesitation-stop-shooting-pattern-police-cowardice/
And I am reminded of the Rotherham scandal, where a Muslim Asian pedo-ring was allowed to exist 

It has been called the "biggest child protection scandal in UK history".[11] From the late 1980s until the 2010s, organised child sexual abuse by descendants of Islamic immigrants affected thousands of local girls and women, continuing almost unchallenged for many years.(ref: https://infogalactic.com/info/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal 

The liberals tell us we don't need guns---the government will protect us. The government is minimally competent. The Police showed up but did not go in. And when the government allows----allows--- thieves, rapists, murderers, like MS-13 and in the Katlyn Stienle murder, the government can NOT be trusted. And for that matter Liberals can NOT be trusted either.  Reality doesn't match their rhetoric. Never has. 

What is the Moral of the story?   Buy Guns, Buy lots of ammo. Keep your powder dry. 

The Maverick Philosopher quotes John Daniel Davidson over at The Federalist, who writes:

"Here it must be said that the Second Amendment was not meant to safeguard the right to hunt deer or shoot clay pigeons, or even protect your home and family from an intruder. The right to bear arms stems from the right of revolution, which is asserted in the Declaration of Independence and forms the basis of America’s social compact. Our republic was forged in revolution, and the American people have always retained the right to overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical. 

[. . .]

That might sound academic or outlandish next to the real-life horror of a school shooting, but the fact remains that we can’t simply wave off the Second Amendment any more than we can wave off the First, or the Fourth, or any of them. They are constitutive elements of the American idea, without which the entire constitutional system would eventually collapse. "

The Maverick Philosopher continues in his analysis, 

"The aim of the Left is to subvert the American constitutional order. This explains why leftists never miss an opportunity to attack the Second Amendment which is the concrete back-up to the First and the others.  A school shooting is a wonderful opportunity for them to recruit schoolchildren and bleeding-heart know-nothings as useful idiots for their cause." (ref: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2018/02/sorry-hillary-its-not-about-hunting.html ) =14.6667px

I second the analysis of the Maverick Philosopher. Yes, the high-schoolers are "useful idiots". Wisdom is not found in the young. Wisdom is ONLY found in the Old. See, a wise man knows the schemes of the left and the march of Marxism thru history. I am of the opinion now that Karl Marx is more powerful than Jesus Christ since even now, all the churches have succumbed to Cultural Marxism and even preach it. These young minds-of-mush are a target rich field of socialists because they are young, dumb, and full of cum, they are easily manipulated and pulled to the Socialist cause because the Socialist cause, Utopia and Peace, is really a child's game. 

As John Davidson notes, guns and the necessity to fight against government is part and parcel of the American psyche. It is Wall that can not be moved. The Left and liberals are tilting at wind-mills. 
​

Last edited by Clinias (2/26/2018 2:14 pm)