Clinton unveils plan for tighter gun control including executive action, expanded background checks

Funny thing is our founding fathers were trying to get away from an overbearing tax happy government... In that context ya, the individual had the right to bear arms against a government trying to control them.

The funny thing history is repeating itself... Damn those founding father were a brilliant group of fellas.
As an Indian I am damn thankful they fled incestuous Europe to here... And brought firearms with them.
Us Indians would still be playin around with stupid sticks, dirt, rocks and sinew.

There's nothing in the Constitution of the United States that advocates in the slightest the use of arms against the government.

Nothing at all.
In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary: "to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."
Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine

And?

It was thought that militias were less likely to "trample" the rights of fellow Americans. After the war of 1812, however, we pretty much raised a "standing army" under federal control. What we have now is a professional military.
 
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Regardless of how much you hate that fact, it remains a fact.

That's what case law has done to corrupt the amendment.

And case law isn't written in stone and can be reversed.

View attachment 51689

You were already slapped down over that as being false. how many more time are you going to MISLEAD PEOPLE with it? you should be censored
 
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Regardless of how much you hate that fact, it remains a fact.
That's what case law has done to corrupt the amendment.
A claim you know you cannot in any way meaningfully support.
And case law isn't written in stone and can be reversed.
So can Roe v Wade
:dunno:
 
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Regardless of how much you hate that fact, it remains a fact.
That's what case law has done to corrupt the amendment.
A claim you know you cannot in any way meaningfully support.
And case law isn't written in stone and can be reversed.
So can Roe v Wade
:dunno:

Start a thread on it.
 
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Regardless of how much you hate that fact, it remains a fact.
That's what case law has done to corrupt the amendment.
A claim you know you cannot in any way meaningfully support.
And case law isn't written in stone and can be reversed.
So can Roe v Wade
:dunno:
Start a thread on it.
On what?
The fact you know you cannot in any meaningful way support your claim that "case law has done to corrupt the [2nd} amendment"?
Or that Roe v Wade can be reversed?
 
Last edited:
So, we can't round up 20,000,000 illegals but we can round up 300,000,000 guns?

:lol:

It must be hard to be two faced hypocrites. the left/lib/dems have become emotional wrecks and we see time and time again after one of these Unfortunate incidents. THEY Should NOT be in charge of running our country and lives.

no to the Democrats in 2016 folks
 

Forum List

Back
Top