Nancy Grace questions the right to bear arms.

[OriginalShroom]

Read the second amendment again.

It's pretty plain.

I've read it hundreds of times.

No where does it say what you are claiming it says.

So defense of the state and militia are meaningless..eh?

The only thing that's germane is the "shall not be infringed" part?

Oh man.

Once again.. here is the 2nd Amendment..

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.

1 - The Bill of Rights is to ensure the powers of the State and the Freedom of the Individual and to limit the power the Centralized Federal Government.

2 - The 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." confirms that only authority the Federal Government has is what is given to it in the Constitution itself. All other authority rests with the people and the State.


Can we agree on those two points? If not, to go any further is a waste of time.


Now I want you to notice that the Militia is there to protect the State. Not the Federal Government, but the State. And as they are protecting the State, from what ever forces there may be threatening it, the people are the first line of defense until the "Regulars" can relieve them. That was the opinion of Jefferson.

A "Well Regulated" or Disciplined militia is one, as noted by Jefferson, that is proficient in the use of firearms. Not drill, not military bearing, not even in saluting. But in being able to defend themselves as needed from what ever force threatens them and their State.

If you go back to the main body of the Constitution, you will find that the Federal Government is only allowed to fund the "army" for two years at a time. There is no such restriction on the States.

So that takes of two of the four portions of the 2nd Amendment...

" 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 comes the third part.. The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Notice it says "arms". That does not limit it to just firearms. But to weapons in general. Everything, at the time, from sword to dagger, firearm, to a length of wood. The people were expected to keep well armed, to have a reasonable amount of powder and lead, and to be able to use those arms. (Opps.. back to the first part again, Well Regulated.)

Finally the last part.. "Shall not be infringed" Pretty strong words there. Not used anywhere else in the Constitution. Pretty plain words also. It is very difficult to misinterpret what they meant when they wrote them down, voted on them, and finally ratified them.

The meanings of those words have not changed in the two and half centuries since they were written.

 

[Sallow]

Perhaps you have some quotations of his which he later used to refute these I have provided?

At the time of the writing, debating, and adapting the Constitution, there never was a debate as to if the 2nd Amendment applied only to those in the militia or that it was not a right of the individual. As noted by Stephen P. Halbrook, no such debate ever occurred. It was considered by all that it was an individual right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms.

I would even go so far as to say that they felt it was a responsibility of each man to own and be proficient in the use of a firearm. Not only for their own protection, but, as Jefferson noted, they were the first line of defense until the regular could relieve them.

Why?

Jefferson isn't the sole author of the Constitution. He may not even have had much to do with it.

The Constitution is pretty clear about collective and individual rights.

The People and Persons are used to make those distinctions.

Please show me an example of "collective" rights being listed in the Constitution and the words "The People" are used in the same sentence.

Jefferson may not have written the entire Constitution, but his expertise on it meanings has been accepted by the Courts and the Congress, as well as the Presidency for years.

Are you now suggesting that he is not the expert on it, especially the Bill of Rights, as everyone has been led to believe for all these years? That his writings, explaining them, is not what we have be lead to believe they were?

Read it.

It's in there.

Go with the amendments.

 

[Sallow]

I've read it hundreds of times.

No where does it say what you are claiming it says.

So defense of the state and militia are meaningless..eh?

The only thing that's germane is the "shall not be infringed" part?

Oh man.

Once again.. here is the 2nd Amendment..

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.

1 - The Bill of Rights is to ensure the powers of the State and the Freedom of the Individual and to limit the power the Centralized Federal Government.

2 - The 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." confirms that only authority the Federal Government has is what is given to it in the Constitution itself. All other authority rests with the people and the State.


Can we agree on those two points? If not, to go any further is a waste of time.


Now I want you to notice that the Militia is there to protect the State. Not the Federal Government, but the State. And as they are protecting the State, from what ever forces there may be threatening it, the people are the first line of defense until the "Regulars" can relieve them. That was the opinion of Jefferson.

A "Well Regulated" or Disciplined militia is one, as noted by Jefferson, that is proficient in the use of firearms. Not drill, not military bearing, not even in saluting. But in being able to defend themselves as needed from what ever force threatens them and their State.

If you go back to the main body of the Constitution, you will find that the Federal Government is only allowed to fund the "army" for two years at a time. There is no such restriction on the States.

So that takes of two of the four portions of the 2nd Amendment...

" 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 comes the third part.. The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Notice it says "arms". That does not limit it to just firearms. But to weapons in general. Everything, at the time, from sword to dagger, firearm, to a length of wood. The people were expected to keep well armed, to have a reasonable amount of powder and lead, and to be able to use those arms. (Opps.. back to the first part again, Well Regulated.)

Finally the last part.. "Shall not be infringed" Pretty strong words there. Not used anywhere else in the Constitution. Pretty plain words also. It is very difficult to misinterpret what they meant when they wrote them down, voted on them, and finally ratified them.

The meanings of those words have not changed in the two and half centuries since they were written.

Agree with what?

The Constitution never set out to make a Confederacy of Individual Nation/states like Europe.

It granted vast power to the Federal government. But that came with limits.

Particularly when it comes to individuals.

One take away from the Constitution is that the idea of state militias may have been another protection against to much federal power..as in not having a standing professional army under central control.

But that's not the case anymore.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This is Nancy Grace in a nutshell:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEyz5Y6MmmY]CNN EXPOSED: Faking Satellite interview - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OriginalShroom]

So defense of the state and militia are meaningless..eh?

The only thing that's germane is the "shall not be infringed" part?

Oh man.

Once again.. here is the 2nd Amendment..

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.

1 - The Bill of Rights is to ensure the powers of the State and the Freedom of the Individual and to limit the power the Centralized Federal Government.

2 - The 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." confirms that only authority the Federal Government has is what is given to it in the Constitution itself. All other authority rests with the people and the State.


Can we agree on those two points? If not, to go any further is a waste of time.


Now I want you to notice that the Militia is there to protect the State. Not the Federal Government, but the State. And as they are protecting the State, from what ever forces there may be threatening it, the people are the first line of defense until the "Regulars" can relieve them. That was the opinion of Jefferson.

A "Well Regulated" or Disciplined militia is one, as noted by Jefferson, that is proficient in the use of firearms. Not drill, not military bearing, not even in saluting. But in being able to defend themselves as needed from what ever force threatens them and their State.

If you go back to the main body of the Constitution, you will find that the Federal Government is only allowed to fund the "army" for two years at a time. There is no such restriction on the States.

So that takes of two of the four portions of the 2nd Amendment...

" 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 comes the third part.. The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Notice it says "arms". That does not limit it to just firearms. But to weapons in general. Everything, at the time, from sword to dagger, firearm, to a length of wood. The people were expected to keep well armed, to have a reasonable amount of powder and lead, and to be able to use those arms. (Opps.. back to the first part again, Well Regulated.)

Finally the last part.. "Shall not be infringed" Pretty strong words there. Not used anywhere else in the Constitution. Pretty plain words also. It is very difficult to misinterpret what they meant when they wrote them down, voted on them, and finally ratified them.

The meanings of those words have not changed in the two and half centuries since they were written.

Agree with what?

The Constitution never set out to make a Confederacy of Individual Nation/states like Europe.

It granted vast power to the Federal government. But that came with limits.

Particularly when it comes to individuals.

One take away from the Constitution is that the idea of state militias may have been another protection against to much federal power..as in not having a standing professional army under central control.

But that's not the case anymore.

In case you missed it.. the Country is called "The UNITED States of America".

50 individual, sovereign States united to form one Country. It's not like any other place in the world.

The 10th Amendment. The Federal Government was designed to be the weaker, less powerful government. Power was supposed to be kept close to the people, at the State level.



I have to go.. Time for me to wrap this up.

 

[Sallow]

Once again.. here is the 2nd Amendment..





1 - The Bill of Rights is to ensure the powers of the State and the Freedom of the Individual and to limit the power the Centralized Federal Government.

2 - The 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." confirms that only authority the Federal Government has is what is given to it in the Constitution itself. All other authority rests with the people and the State.


Can we agree on those two points? If not, to go any further is a waste of time.


Now I want you to notice that the Militia is there to protect the State. Not the Federal Government, but the State. And as they are protecting the State, from what ever forces there may be threatening it, the people are the first line of defense until the "Regulars" can relieve them. That was the opinion of Jefferson.

A "Well Regulated" or Disciplined militia is one, as noted by Jefferson, that is proficient in the use of firearms. Not drill, not military bearing, not even in saluting. But in being able to defend themselves as needed from what ever force threatens them and their State.

If you go back to the main body of the Constitution, you will find that the Federal Government is only allowed to fund the "army" for two years at a time. There is no such restriction on the States.

So that takes of two of the four portions of the 2nd Amendment...

" 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 comes the third part.. The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Notice it says "arms". That does not limit it to just firearms. But to weapons in general. Everything, at the time, from sword to dagger, firearm, to a length of wood. The people were expected to keep well armed, to have a reasonable amount of powder and lead, and to be able to use those arms. (Opps.. back to the first part again, Well Regulated.)

Finally the last part.. "Shall not be infringed" Pretty strong words there. Not used anywhere else in the Constitution. Pretty plain words also. It is very difficult to misinterpret what they meant when they wrote them down, voted on them, and finally ratified them.

The meanings of those words have not changed in the two and half centuries since they were written.

Agree with what?

The Constitution never set out to make a Confederacy of Individual Nation/states like Europe.

It granted vast power to the Federal government. But that came with limits.

Particularly when it comes to individuals.

One take away from the Constitution is that the idea of state militias may have been another protection against to much federal power..as in not having a standing professional army under central control.

But that's not the case anymore.

In case you missed it.. the Country is called "The UNITED States of America".

50 individual, sovereign States united to form one Country. It's not like any other place in the world.

The 10th Amendment. The Federal Government was designed to be the weaker, less powerful government. Power was supposed to be kept close to the people, at the State level.



I have to go.. Time for me to wrap this up.

Malarkey.

The Federal government is meant to be supreme with limits.

Otherwise, we look like Europe.

And we aren't so different from many governments in the world.

And this was done, deliberately.

We would not be the economic powerhouse had the Constitution been what you are making it out to be.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Video came in: EDIT WRONG CLIP. Still waiting for the proper clip, it's right after or before this segment.

She actually gets so pissed in this segment, after being fooled to admit she's wrong, to CUT HIS MIC and even says she's doing it lololol
]


I'll have to wait for the transcript. Should be up within several hours.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ng.html

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Video came in: EDIT WRONG CLIP. Still waiting for the proper clip, it's right after or before this segment.

She actually gets so pissed in this segment, after being fooled to admit she's wrong, to CUT HIS MIC and even says she's doing it lololol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmyBq4pdjS4]


I'll have to wait for the transcript. Should be up within several hours.

CNN.com - Transcripts

She truly is a dumb bitch. She asks felonious questions and scoffs at honest answers and condescends on top of it. This shit shouldn't be on television. This reflects the stupidity of our society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Shouldn't you be over on her website, arguing with her?

 

[OriginalShroom]

How can anyone give that woman a single ounce of credibility is beyond me.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Transcript is in:

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 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.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Nancy Grace questions the right to bear arms.

And?

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

And we're allowed to ridicule that opinion, or is it a one-way street?

 

[g5000]

First, let me get one little nit out of the way. It's "Kel Tec", not "Keltec" as written by whoever wrote the transcript.

Moving on...

Nancy Grace is articulating a very common liberal mindset. One must justify oneself before one is allowed to exercise one's rights.

It does not get more clueless than that.


I would ask such ass-backward people to justify their first amendment rights before they could use them. "Why did you NEED to buy porn?"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

You I guess can't see the commas or understand the written word. I suggest you retake English class.

 

[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.

Then that would be judicial activism, because the Constitution allows for the right to bear arms for people in a militia representing the state.

That is NOT what the second says. It says individuals have the right to be armed and ONE reason is that the State needs a militia. The right is Individual they just added one of the reasons it was granted not all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then that would be judicial activism, because the Constitution allows for the right to bear arms for people in a militia representing the state.

Where does it say that?

It's not in my copy of the Constitution.

Read the second amendment again.

It's pretty plain.

Really you need to find a person that understands the written English language and have them explain what it means because you are absolutely wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When you bring up Jefferson, you bring up a complicated individual who changed a lot of his views during the course of his life.

Like the whole "tree of liberty" thing changed after Jefferson got a good look at what that meant during the French Revolution.

Or his idea of "Federal Power" after he became President.

So you'd better be able to explain that stuff..or don't bring him up.

Perhaps you have some quotations of his which he later used to refute these I have provided?

At the time of the writing, debating, and adapting the Constitution, there never was a debate as to if the 2nd Amendment applied only to those in the militia or that it was not a right of the individual. As noted by Stephen P. Halbrook, no such debate ever occurred. It was considered by all that it was an individual right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms.

I would even go so far as to say that they felt it was a responsibility of each man to own and be proficient in the use of a firearm. Not only for their own protection, but, as Jefferson noted, they were the first line of defense until the regular could relieve them.

Why?

Jefferson isn't the sole author of the Constitution. He may not even have had much to do with it.

The Constitution is pretty clear about collective and individual rights.

The People and Persons are used to make those distinctions.

Actually every where the term "the people" appears it is understood to be an individual right, care to try again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The second amendment as an English sentence explained by an expert on the matter.

THE TEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Sorry Sallow and company you people are so wrong it isn't even close.

 

[hjmick]

Nancy Grace is an evil and dangerous bitch. The world would be a better place if she were denied access to America's airwaves.

 

[g5000]

Nancy Grace is an evil and dangerous bitch. The world would be a better place if she were denied access to America's airwaves.

Hope you were being sarcastic about violating her first amendment rights.

Shut off the TV until they clean it up.