That isn't what I said. In this case, the fact that this person was a leftist was excluded from the mainstream media coverage, what little there was of it. OTOH, the reports of Jared Loughner as a right-winger who was inspired by Sarah Palin were a major part of the blanket coverage. Campaign ads that he hadn't seen were cited as a cause of his rampage. Dorner, who is currently on the run, is a gun control advocate who admiringly cites Piers Morgan and the MSNBC drones, but that hasn't been widely reported. The point, which you are obscuring, is that when it's a leftist, the media ignores the uncomfortable facts and doesn't provide the same level of coverage as it does when they think that they have someone on the right in their cross-hairs.Originally Posted by PeterS
No one is suggesting censoring the media. Unfortunately, it censors itself, because the elite press sees itself as an adversary of conservatives. This is why the coverage is slanted to the point where it can no longer be trusted, and that is the crux of my argument, that they have the right to print whatever they like, but that we have the right to debunk them when they manufacture counterfactual narratives in support of their agenda.
On the contrary, it is you who doesn't get it. First, understand that the primary authority behind the Constitution is not the federal government, but the people. The powers given to the federal government are those powers delegated by the people of the United States, and ratified by the states. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not granted to the people by a benevolent state, but are rights which predate the state, and which the state has no authority to withdraw. The delegation of national defense to the federal government does not mean that we abrogate the right of self defense, or possession of the means of self defense.
You really don't know what an assault weapon is, do you? The DOD definition of an assault weapon is a firearm which is capable of selective fire. What that means is that, unlike a semi-automatic weapon, in which one trigger pull results in one round fired, an assault weapon has a switch which permits both semi automatic fire and fully automatic fire (one trigger pull results in multiple rounds fired, either in a limited burst, or until the magazine is exhausted). Weapons with that capability were restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required purchase of a license from the federal government for each weapon. Since the federal government had the discretion under the act to deny the licenses, and no licenses have been issued in decades, the act effectively banned assault weapons. The weapons that you want to ban are semi-automatic rifles which have features which also appear on military assault weapons, such as pistol grips and flash suppressors, but which do not make them any more lethal than other single shot weapons. This is why the Clinton era ban failed to accomplish anything and was not renewed.
Yes, and that is a matter of concern to anyone who has noted his classification of the legal criteria for using drones against US citizens, but it is not relevant to this discussion.
If you wish to argue that I don't understand the laws which I cited, then by all means, provide your interpretation. Ideally, that interpretation will also quote the statutes and supporting documents, such as the Federalist Papers or the decisions of the various courts in interpreting the Second Amendment. However, if you are simply attempting to provide cover for your inability to refute the argument, then the absence of an effective response will be all the proof necessary. Your move, Petey.
And yet, when the entire amendment is addressed, you make a blanket claim about my alleged lack of understanding, without any supporting arguments. The discussion of the composition of the militia that I provided, along with the legal definitions, document the intent of the founders and the purpose of the clause. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
