Congress woman,"Constitution is 400 yrs old"

[W Tell]

@Lightly--My point is that the constitutional verbiage assumes some degree of governmental regulation.

If there were no regulation, then our local gun shops could sell us fully-auto, hand grenades, mortars, rockets, tanks, nukes, etc.

We won't agree on this, if only because--like every other aspect of the US Constitution, it is open for interpretation.

Learn the difference between "arms" and "armaments". It will serve you well in the future.

[lightly]

@Lightly--My point is that the constitutional verbiage assumes some degree of governmental regulation.

If there were no regulation, then our local gun shops could sell us fully-auto, hand grenades, mortars, rockets, tanks, nukes, etc.

We won't agree on this, if only because--like every other aspect of the US Constitution, it is open for interpretation.

Thanks DeWitz, We're nearly in agreement . Militias are made up of the public/citizens.. Independent of Government ?

but,, ya... Regulation is a good thing to prevent the sorts of sales you mention ... But , such regulations still do nothing to infringe the right of the People to KEEP arms. ( normal guns) ... sometimes you need a permit?.. Fine. .. an inconvenience and a tax .. but still , not really Infringement?

Guns were as common as shovels when the 2nd amendment was enacted... I see the 2nd amendment as an assurance, added to the constitution, that the people will keep the right of self defense .. against any aggression or tyranny, from without or within.

Immediately after the 2nd amendment was enacted.. were there any new laws restricting the people's right to Keep arms ? No.

.... there were laws mandating the keeping of a firearm by Militia Members, however.

Were non militia members forced to give up their arms? No. ..and they still aren't. Why is that ?, if only militia members have a right to keep arms?

It was commonly assumed that the people had arms, and had the right to have arms. The 2nd amendment is a guarantee that the right will not be infringed.

[DeWitz]

Learn the difference between "arms" and "armaments". It will serve you well in the future.

Please do inform me of your take on the difference.

Until somewhere in the 1930's fully automatic weapons (the Thompson submachine gun came in what could have been called a 'citizen's' version, which was quickly adopted by the gangsters of the age) were legal for the citizenry. That changed. My point, which you may disagree with, is simply that history and interpretation have caused change(s) in the way the 2nd Amendment is applied. That's all.

There is no absolute distinction, or point on a spectrum, where "arms" become "armaments," or when "armaments" are no longer "arms."

[DeWitz]

@Lightly--Thanks. I'm pleasantly surprised that we agree to and on this point. And none of what I've written should be construed as supporting this trainwreck of a congressperson. . . Yikes!

[W Tell]

Please do inform me of your take on the difference.

Until somewhere in the 1930's fully automatic weapons (the Thompson submachine gun came in what could have been called a 'citizen's' version, which was quickly adopted by the gangsters of the age) were legal for the citizenry. That changed. My point, which you may disagree with, is simply that history and interpretation have caused change(s) in the way the 2nd Amendment is applied. That's all.

There is no absolute distinction, or point on a spectrum, where "arms" become "armaments," or when "armaments" are no longer "arms."

Seriously? You actualy see a blurred line between "arms" and "armaments" ?

You've gone where I won't go. Congratulations!

[Jeremiah65]

I don't get too upset about these things anymore...I tend to use them as instructional tools about the degradation of public education. How did this person get their job anyway? Oh...a district voted her in...well...maybe she was the sharpest knife in the drawer for that district...sad but highly possible.

Our country is full of half baked "ideas" of what happened in history because someone, somewhere is slowly and cleverly working to revise it.

I guarantee you if you went out on a street corner with a note pad and a microphone and pretended to be all legit and just asked random people why the civil war was fought...95% will tell you it was over slavery...which is patently wrong...but that is the history they are teaching now...wrong...but someone does not care, it paints a prettier picture.

What bothers me is ... who can exactly say what the long term ramifications of washing history away will be. I tend to believe in the saying from George Santayana "Those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it"....well...that was the clever quotes rendition...we have all heard varying versions...

So...we have a problem. We are not teaching "real" history in some cases...that bothers me a lot. We see enough arguing about recent history...American History...and never mind ancient history....it seems everyone has an "opinion" about that and believe what they want to believe. Then when you get into pre-history...the madness is off the chain...stack after stack of clever and educated people arguing because they cannot agree....what does this say about modern education?

Edited April 14, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[Yamato]

It's designed to bother you. It's a stupid political soundbyte plucked out of a much larger speech that everyone can throw doody over while ignoring the rest of the speech.

[DeWitz]

Seriously? You actualy see a blurred line between "arms" and "armaments" ?

You've gone where I won't go. Congratulations!

Congratulations--on your non-response to what I did say. I did not say "blurred," but rather "spectrum."

Use a dictionary if necessary to explore the differences between arms and armament, and how context and history change nomenclature. Consider my example of fully-auto "Tommy guns." Terminology changes. I'm sure there are other examples, but I'm not a professional historian of firearms and their usage.

Edited April 14, 2014 by DeWitz

[Mantis914]

Wow, why oh why does this buffoon get reelected when she continues to embarrass herself and the state consistently. Well, at least, she's not alone, there's a lot of people to add to the evergrowing list of uneducated politicians that didn't read the constitution, this brings to mind one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOq3O8g1xw4

[W Tell]

Congratulations--on your non-response to what I did say. I did not say "blurred," but rather "spectrum."

Use a dictionary if necessary to explore the differences between arms and armament, and how context and history change nomenclature. Consider my example of fully-auto "Tommy guns." Terminology changes. I'm sure there are other examples, but I'm not a professional historian of firearms and their usage.

You bring up a good point. Words do morph. I believe that these two are still as they once were, but the word "regulate" comes to mind. It once meant "to make regular" and now days it means "to control".

[DeWitz]

You bring up a good point. Words do morph. I believe that these two are still as they once were, but the word "regulate" comes to mind. It once meant "to make regular" and now days it means "to control".

Excellent point. Both "to regulate" and "to control" can simply refer to physical maintenance or calibration (scuba gear; fine instruments). You are right that the contemporary meaning of "regulate," in a social/political context, emphasizes control.

[W Tell]

Excellent point. Both "to regulate" and "to control" can simply refer to physical maintenance or calibration (scuba gear; fine instruments). You are right that the contemporary meaning of "regulate," in a social/political context, emphasizes control.

I like you. Not in the political since that I want to kill you. In everyday speak us commoners get.