Nancy Grace questions the right to bear arms.

[The2ndAmendment]

I knew it wouldn't be long before some talking head questioned the Second Amendment in its entirety.

For about 6-8 minutes she kept grilling her guest "Why did XXX decide to carry Colt and the ammunition that night?"

The lawyer kept saying, "It's his right to keep and bear arms, and he even had a concealed weapon permit, he always carried it."

She responds, after asking the question about 20 more times:

"I don't' care about the Constitution, that's not the issue right now. Why did he have a gun?"

(This was about the Zimmerman trial, but that's not the point of this thread, all I care about is the general context of her words in this thread)

Transcript:

He was not walking his dog that night, correct, or was walking his dog?

TAAFFE: No, he was on his way out to Target to pick up groceries for lunch for the week. And lo and behold, he saw Trayvon up in my yard.

GRACE: May I ask you, why did he need a gun, loaded, without the safety on, to what, go to Publix?

TAAFFE: The safety was on. The Keltec 9 -- he was going to Target. The Keltec 9 -- let me reiterate. The Keltec 9 has a safety mechanism built into the trigger itself. These are John Guy`s words. And you can Google it. You can look it up. I`m just sharing what I -- what I heard from John Guy.

GRACE: Frank, the external safety was not on, all right?

TAAFFE: No, the external safety was not on.

GRACE: That`s my question.

TAAFFE: There`s a built-in safety in the trigger. There`s a built-in safety in the trigger. It`s an extra-long pull. Most automatics have a shorter pull on the trigger. The Keltec 9 had an extra-long pull, which is almost -- acts like a safety within the mechanism itself.

GRACE: Mr. Taaffe, let me rephrase my question.

TAAFFE: Yes? OK.

GRACE: Why would your friend, George Zimmerman, have to carry a Keltec 9 with the external safety off, with a live round in the chamber to go to Target?

TAAFFE: He had a concealed weapons permit, which allows him to carry a weapon into certain venues and into not certain venues. So it was his 2nd Amendment right to carry that weapon.

GRACE: Right. I`m very familiar with the Constitution. I`m going to ask you again. Why did he feel he needed to take a gun loaded with live ammo to Target?

TAAFFE: I can`t answer that. You have to ask him that.

GRACE: All right. OK. I thought maybe in your discussions with him, that would have come up. OK...

TAAFFE: I want to share this with you. That`s a good point. Let me bring this up. The night that my home was being burglarized, like I shared with you another evening, he was walking his dog, and he was carrying his Keltec 9 with him that night, too. Why did he carry it with him? You know, he had a concealed weapons permit and he wanted to carry it. That`s his right. He even has a permit.

GRACE: OK, you don`t need to keep reiterating that. I heard you. Second verse same as the first. I know it`s his constitutional right. I really don`t want to burn up time talking about the Constitution right now. We`re not talking about his right to bear arms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nancy Grace questions the right to bear arms.

And?

One person’s opinion. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Nancy Grace questions the right to bear arms.

And?

One person’s opinion. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion.

I should rephrase that:

Nancy Grace admittedly ignores the right to bear arms.

And she did it with hatred, rage and ire.

I can't wait to get the video clip.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nancy Grace questions the right to bear arms.

And?

One person’s opinion. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion.

She is a lawyer, she knows that when one has a concealed carry permit one does not need to justify why they carry, when they carry or any other such question.

 

[Sallow]

Nancy Grace questions the right to bear arms.

And?

One person’s opinion. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion.

I should rephrase that:

Nancy Grace admittedly ignores the right to bear arms.

And she did it with hatred, rage and ire.

I can't wait to get the video clip.

Let's not ignore it.

Let's go with it.

What militia does the person belong too and was that person involved in defense of the state?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And?

One person’s opinion. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion.

I should rephrase that:

Nancy Grace admittedly ignores the right to bear arms.

And she did it with hatred, rage and ire.

I can't wait to get the video clip.

Let's not ignore it.

Let's go with it.

What militia does the person belong too and was that person involved in defense of the state?

Irrelevant questions and you know it. When a State issues a concealed carry permit one is free within the confines of State law to carry said weapon anywhere that is legal. The Supreme Court was clear the 2nd Amendment is a personal right irregardless of any membership in a militia.

 

[Sallow]

I should rephrase that:

Nancy Grace admittedly ignores the right to bear arms.

And she did it with hatred, rage and ire.

I can't wait to get the video clip.

Let's not ignore it.

Let's go with it.

What militia does the person belong too and was that person involved in defense of the state?

Irrelevant questions and you know it. When a State issues a concealed carry permit one is free within the confines of State law to carry said weapon anywhere that is legal. The Supreme Court was clear the 2nd Amendment is a personal right irregardless of any membership in a militia.

Not irrelevant at all.

It's my position that the 2nd amendment is there as a collective right to form a citizen army.

It's been corrupted from original intent.

No where in the constitution does it advocate for personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nancy Grace questions the right to bear arms.

And?

One person’s opinion. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion.

She is a lawyer, she knows that when one has a concealed carry permit one does not need to justify why they carry, when they carry or any other such question.

And?

One person’s opinion. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let's not ignore it.

Let's go with it.

What militia does the person belong too and was that person involved in defense of the state?

Irrelevant questions and you know it. When a State issues a concealed carry permit one is free within the confines of State law to carry said weapon anywhere that is legal. The Supreme Court was clear the 2nd Amendment is a personal right irregardless of any membership in a militia.

Not irrelevant at all.

It's my position that the 2nd amendment is there as a collective right to form a citizen army.

It's been corrupted from original intent.

No where in the constitution does it advocate for personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

It matters not one whit what you "feel" the 2nd conveys. The Court has spoken, it IS a personal right, IT IS a right conveyed irrespective of belonging to a militia.

Further the State of Florida granted Zimmerman a concealed carry permit, so long as he carried within the limits of Florida law ( which he did) he is not obliged to answer why he happened to be carrying that night.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[
It's been corrupted from original intent.

No where in the constitution does it advocate for personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

You're correct, it's not meant for overthrowing the government, it is meant for restoring the government of, by and for the People, as seen in Athens, Tennessee, 1946. You Libbies are about to a get a real taste of it within the next 2-5 years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Irrelevant questions and you know it. When a State issues a concealed carry permit one is free within the confines of State law to carry said weapon anywhere that is legal. The Supreme Court was clear the 2nd Amendment is a personal right irregardless of any membership in a militia.

Not irrelevant at all.

It's my position that the 2nd amendment is there as a collective right to form a citizen army.

It's been corrupted from original intent.

No where in the constitution does it advocate for personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

It matters not one whit what you "feel" the 2nd conveys. The Court has spoken, it IS a personal right, IT IS a right conveyed irrespective of belonging to a militia.

Further the State of Florida granted Zimmerman a concealed carry permit, so long as he carried within the limits of Florida law ( which he did) he is not obliged to answer why he happened to be carrying that night.

He does have to answer as to why he used it, however.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not irrelevant at all.

It's my position that the 2nd amendment is there as a collective right to form a citizen army.

It's been corrupted from original intent.

No where in the constitution does it advocate for personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

It matters not one whit what you "feel" the 2nd conveys. The Court has spoken, it IS a personal right, IT IS a right conveyed irrespective of belonging to a militia.

Further the State of Florida granted Zimmerman a concealed carry permit, so long as he carried within the limits of Florida law ( which he did) he is not obliged to answer why he happened to be carrying that night.

He does have to answer as to why he used it, however.

I think he already has: Self defense. Whether the jury agrees is another matter.

Let her question the 2nd amendment. There is nothing to fear from questioning.

 

[Politico]

She is a leftytoon nutbag.

 

[Sallow]

Irrelevant questions and you know it. When a State issues a concealed carry permit one is free within the confines of State law to carry said weapon anywhere that is legal. The Supreme Court was clear the 2nd Amendment is a personal right irregardless of any membership in a militia.

Not irrelevant at all.

It's my position that the 2nd amendment is there as a collective right to form a citizen army.

It's been corrupted from original intent.

No where in the constitution does it advocate for personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

It matters not one whit what you "feel" the 2nd conveys. The Court has spoken, it IS a personal right, IT IS a right conveyed irrespective of belonging to a militia.

Further the State of Florida granted Zimmerman a concealed carry permit, so long as he carried within the limits of Florida law ( which he did) he is not obliged to answer why he happened to be carrying that night.

Nothing to do with "feeling".

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.

That's the full amendment. You folks seldom quote it in full.

Trying reading it.

It's in English.

 

[Avatar4321]

She is a leftytoon nutbag.

Why is she nuts?

 

[Avatar4321]

Not irrelevant at all.

It's my position that the 2nd amendment is there as a collective right to form a citizen army.

It's been corrupted from original intent.

No where in the constitution does it advocate for personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

It matters not one whit what you "feel" the 2nd conveys. The Court has spoken, it IS a personal right, IT IS a right conveyed irrespective of belonging to a militia.

Further the State of Florida granted Zimmerman a concealed carry permit, so long as he carried within the limits of Florida law ( which he did) he is not obliged to answer why he happened to be carrying that night.

Nothing to do with "feeling".

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.

That's the full amendment. You folks seldom quote it in full.

Trying reading it.

It's in English.

We do. You cannot infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Let's not ignore it.

Let's go with it.

What militia does the person belong too and was that person involved in defense of the state?

Irrelevant questions and you know it. When a State issues a concealed carry permit one is free within the confines of State law to carry said weapon anywhere that is legal. The Supreme Court was clear the 2nd Amendment is a personal right irregardless of any membership in a militia.

Not irrelevant at all.

It's my position that the 2nd amendment is there as a collective right to form a citizen army.

It's been corrupted from original intent.

No where in the constitution does it advocate for personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

If that is truly your position, than that shows an ignorance on your part when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

I would highly suggest you start by using some logic.

When you read the Ten Amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, you will find they either guarantee personal rights, State rights, or limit Federal Government's authority.

No where in the Constitution does it ever speak of a "group" right. It is either the Individual's rights, the State's right, or the power of the Federal Government.

Then, if you look at the writings of the Founders, nearly everyone one of them spoke of the individual's right to own a firearm. I honestly can not think of a single one who wrote differently.

If we are bound to use the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists

Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

to limit religion in the United States... then it only is right to use Jefferson's words when it comes to the 2nd Amendment..

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

 

[OriginalShroom]

Not irrelevant at all.

It's my position that the 2nd amendment is there as a collective right to form a citizen army.

It's been corrupted from original intent.

No where in the constitution does it advocate for personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

It matters not one whit what you "feel" the 2nd conveys. The Court has spoken, it IS a personal right, IT IS a right conveyed irrespective of belonging to a militia.

Further the State of Florida granted Zimmerman a concealed carry permit, so long as he carried within the limits of Florida law ( which he did) he is not obliged to answer why he happened to be carrying that night.

Nothing to do with "feeling".

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.

That's the full amendment. You folks seldom quote it in full.

Trying reading it.

It's in English.

Once again.. Let us refer back to Jefferson..

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

Every Citizen is a member of the Militia simply by being a Citizen. Therefore right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Sallow,

Finally, to end your confusion...

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.

-- Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

 

[Sallow]

Sallow,

Finally, to end your confusion...

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.

-- Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

I'm not confused in the slightest.

The fact you have to go outside to constitution and indeed history shows the opposite.

Shortly after the revolution, the Continental Army was disbanded.

The original intent was to have male citizens defend the homeland.

That's what the second amendment was all about.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with personal protection, hunting or overthrowing the government.

Got it?