Gun Owners, It's time to stop compromising.

Get back to YOUR only point in all of this that you have your guns to fight against government tyranny. You monkeys are NEVER going to fight against the US Federal government. Ever.
More than likely you are correct but not for the reasons you think. The federal government is vastly out gunned. An armed population prevent s citizens from becoming subjects. I'll post some examples since you are too dishonest and/or intellectually lazy to do it on your own.

Federal employees and the military are citizens too and most wouldn't turn against their own neighbors, friends and family.

Instead, what would happen is what has happened elsewhere on the globe, we have plently of examples in Australia, England, etc. First comes national registration or permits then they can legally make it increasingly difficult to own a gun until it may be impossible. Then the federal government can do whatever it wants. Voila, you're a subject of the state.

Lesson 2:
GunCite: Second Amendment-Quotes from the Framers and their contemporaries
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
You're not going to fight against tyranny so why do you claim to follow the 2nd Amendment?
You are little more than a spewing child throwing a tantrum. Grow up and get educated.
 
Why are the radical, leftist, and communist in this country so weak that they are afraid of guns? These people should be all rounded up and put on trial in the public square. They serve no legitimate purpose in society other than promoting Obama's plan of division and government dependence. We can't fix our government until we fix the humans that vote for this continued strife

-Geaux

Hey look it another mouth of the revolution. When is it gonna start go? I see you are here with M14. You two the leaders of the revolution pack? You guys are all mouth. No action. But you have a strange fantasy life.

Get this revolution started or shut the fuck up about what you are gonna do. Tiresome is what you guys are.
 
Oh fuck, don't tell me an ice weasel is in this fantasy as well. Hey, are you the one gonna get this revolution going ice. Or are you all mouth on a message board as well?
 
Why are the radical, leftist, and communist in this country so weak that they are afraid of guns? These people should be all rounded up and put on trial in the public square. They serve no legitimate purpose in society other than promoting Obama's plan of division and government dependence. We can't fix our government until we fix the humans that vote for this continued strife

-Geaux

Hey look it another mouth of the revolution. When is it gonna start go? I see you are here with M14. You two the leaders of the revolution pack? You guys are all mouth. No action. But you have a strange fantasy life.

Get this revolution started or shut the fuck up about what you are gonna do. Tiresome is what you guys are.

While I don't use it, you might want to use the ignore feature to promote your suppression of the 1st amendment.

-Geaux
 
Wow, dumbass. You're right. The first words of the 2nd Amendment don't actually mean anything. Every mouth-breathing simpleton can own a machine gun. That's exactly what the Founders envisioned.

Every able bodied man owned his own musket, why can't they now own firearms and rifles?
 
Why are the radical, leftist, and communist in this country so weak that they are afraid of guns? These people should be all rounded up and put on trial in the public square. They serve no legitimate purpose in society other than promoting Obama's plan of division and government dependence. We can't fix our government until we fix the humans that vote for this continued strife

-Geaux

Hey look it another mouth of the revolution. When is it gonna start go? I see you are here with M14. You two the leaders of the revolution pack? You guys are all mouth. No action. But you have a strange fantasy life.

Get this revolution started or shut the fuck up about what you are gonna do. Tiresome is what you guys are.

While I don't use it, you might want to use the ignore feature to promote your suppression of the 1st amendment.

-Geaux

What the fuck are you babbling about now go? When does the revolution start? That date is the only bull shit I am interested in hearing about from you. When does it start. You got most of your "squad" right here. Are you READY for the big day? Or is it to cold and snowy outside? Make sure you start the revolution in nice weather eh.
 
Hey look it another mouth of the revolution. When is it gonna start go? I see you are here with M14. You two the leaders of the revolution pack? You guys are all mouth. No action. But you have a strange fantasy life.

Get this revolution started or shut the fuck up about what you are gonna do. Tiresome is what you guys are.

While I don't use it, you might want to use the ignore feature to promote your suppression of the 1st amendment.

-Geaux

What the fuck are you babbling about now go? When does the revolution start? That date is the only bull shit I am interested in hearing about from you. When does it start. You got most of your "squad" right here. Are you READY for the big day? Or is it to cold and snowy outside? Make sure you start the revolution in nice weather eh.

Only the U.S. telegraphs their intent.

Loose lips sink ships and all... :lol:

-Geaux
 
What are the first words of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?

Why are those words there if they aren't intended to be part of the rule?

Go back and read the federalist papers. Do some research and understand what the definition in the 1800 was for the words militia and well regulated.

If you actually understood what you were reading you should understand completely why the second is a protection of an individual right to bear arms.

By the way – the SCOTUS outlined exactly what those words meant in the hyperlinked case that has been provided to you. Can we really make this any simpler for you – all the information is there on a silver platter if you would just bother to do any actual research.
Get back to YOUR only point in all of this that you have your guns to fight against government tyranny. You monkeys are NEVER going to fight against the US Federal government. Ever. So why do you think that you are part of any militia? You're just a joke. All of you gun freaks are screaming about protecting your "rights" while the government is taking all of those rights away from you. And it's not even a Democrat or a Republican phenomenon. Bush signed the PATRIOT Act and Obama renewed it. Have you read the USAPATRIOT Act? It basically says, "Fuck the Constitution."

Why do you insist on claiming to be revolutionary patriots when you cheered Bush on for torturing POWs in secret prisons? You don't know what tyranny is. Running drone strikes on civilians for ten years is AMERICAN TERRORISM. You aren't using your guns or your votes to stop it, so how can you claim to be patriots who are willing to bear arms against government tyranny? Do you honestly think that a bunch of FOX-watching Wal-Mart shoppers are going to fight a guerrilla war against the US military? Do you honestly believe that your 30-round magazine is going to mean shit against a Predator drone or an Abrams tank?

You're not going to fight against tyranny so why do you claim to follow the 2nd Amendment?

why are you so fucking stupid ??

please do not answer that Q. you will only confirm my suspicions,

Bush tortured POWs...? they were treated very well by WWII and Korea standards, but you wouldn't know that because i believe you were born a few days ago and fell off the turnip truck yesterday :lmao:
 
Since you clearly do not know what you're talking about, I'll assume you're merely ignorant of the subject and help you out:

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.

There you go.

Now, if your ignorance is willful, you're beyond help and need be no further considered.

That's it?

So the Jews had no choice but to go to the gas/incineration chambers?

So if in any given country the parasites become the majority of the electorate and there are not enough producers and taxpayers to constitute a majority , do the latter just rollover and play dead?

.
Please explain how your questions logically extend form the bolded statementin my post.
:confused:


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.

Was it "Lawful" in Nazi Germany for the Jews to try to shoot at the SS and Gestapo?

Wil it be considered "lawful" for the Taxpayers and producers to violently oppose the US welfare/warfare police state?

.
 
Go back and read the federalist papers. Do some research and understand what the definition in the 1800 was for the words militia and well regulated.

If you actually understood what you were reading you should understand completely why the second is a protection of an individual right to bear arms.

By the way – the SCOTUS outlined exactly what those words meant in the hyperlinked case that has been provided to you. Can we really make this any simpler for you – all the information is there on a silver platter if you would just bother to do any actual research.
Get back to YOUR only point in all of this that you have your guns to fight against government tyranny. You monkeys are NEVER going to fight against the US Federal government. Ever. So why do you think that you are part of any militia? You're just a joke. All of you gun freaks are screaming about protecting your "rights" while the government is taking all of those rights away from you. And it's not even a Democrat or a Republican phenomenon. Bush signed the PATRIOT Act and Obama renewed it. Have you read the USAPATRIOT Act? It basically says, "Fuck the Constitution."

Why do you insist on claiming to be revolutionary patriots when you cheered Bush on for torturing POWs in secret prisons? You don't know what tyranny is. Running drone strikes on civilians for ten years is AMERICAN TERRORISM. You aren't using your guns or your votes to stop it, so how can you claim to be patriots who are willing to bear arms against government tyranny? Do you honestly think that a bunch of FOX-watching Wal-Mart shoppers are going to fight a guerrilla war against the US military? Do you honestly believe that your 30-round magazine is going to mean shit against a Predator drone or an Abrams tank?

You're not going to fight against tyranny so why do you claim to follow the 2nd Amendment?


Sush KNB. Why you want to shit on the fantasy lives of M14, goforit and a few others who have this dream of being the next leaders of the revolution. That is IF they can turn their fucking computers off long enough to find their front doors.

As i keep saying; quit fucking TALKING about the revolution and get er done. WTF are you waiting for M14 shooter? To grow a pair of balls? Ain't gonna happen. All talk, no action.

Will the revolution be televised? I wanna watch.
Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
 
That's it?

So the Jews had no choice but to go to the gas/incineration chambers?

So if in any given country the parasites become the majority of the electorate and there are not enough producers and taxpayers to constitute a majority , do the latter just rollover and play dead?

.
Please explain how your questions logically extend form the bolded statementin my post.
:confused:


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.

Was it "Lawful" in Nazi Germany for the Jews to try to shoot at the SS and Gestapo?

Wil it be considered "lawful" for the Taxpayers and producers to violently oppose the US welfare/warfare police state?

.
I'm sorry - until you tell me how your questions are remotely related to anything I said, I cannot answer them.
 
What are the first words of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?

Why are those words there if they aren't intended to be part of the rule?

Go back and read the federalist papers. Do some research and understand what the definition in the 1800 was for the words militia and well regulated.

If you actually understood what you were reading you should understand completely why the second is a protection of an individual right to bear arms.

By the way – the SCOTUS outlined exactly what those words meant in the hyperlinked case that has been provided to you. Can we really make this any simpler for you – all the information is there on a silver platter if you would just bother to do any actual research.
Get back to YOUR only point in all of this that you have your guns to fight against government tyranny. You monkeys are NEVER going to fight against the US Federal government. Ever. So why do you think that you are part of any militia? You're just a joke. All of you gun freaks are screaming about protecting your "rights" while the government is taking all of those rights away from you. And it's not even a Democrat or a Republican phenomenon. Bush signed the PATRIOT Act and Obama renewed it. Have you read the USAPATRIOT Act? It basically says, "Fuck the Constitution."

Why do you insist on claiming to be revolutionary patriots when you cheered Bush on for torturing POWs in secret prisons? You don't know what tyranny is. Running drone strikes on civilians for ten years is AMERICAN TERRORISM. You aren't using your guns or your votes to stop it, so how can you claim to be patriots who are willing to bear arms against government tyranny? Do you honestly think that a bunch of FOX-watching Wal-Mart shoppers are going to fight a guerrilla war against the US military? Do you honestly believe that your 30-round magazine is going to mean shit against a Predator drone or an Abrams tank?

You're not going to fight against tyranny so why do you claim to follow the 2nd Amendment?

Was that childish rant about nothing supposed to prove something?

Now let’s try this again, do you actually know what those two terms meant? I would guess you do not considering the ranting that you keep going on to distract from your adjunct ignorance. Look it up and get back to us so that we might have a real conversation about the meaning of the second.

Until you bother to actually understand the words that were used, you don’t have a leg to stand on in your arguments as they are baseless.
 
That's it?

So the Jews had no choice but to go to the gas/incineration chambers?

So if in any given country the parasites become the majority of the electorate and there are not enough producers and taxpayers to constitute a majority , do the latter just rollover and play dead?

.
Please explain how your questions logically extend form the bolded statementin my post.
:confused:


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.

Was it "Lawful" in Nazi Germany for the Jews to try to shoot at the SS and Gestapo?

Wil it be considered "lawful" for the Taxpayers and producers to violently oppose the US welfare/warfare police state?

.

No. The second protects our rights in the manner that shooter states. What you are referring to CANNOT be protected by the second because it is inherently unlawful (and against the constitution).

HOWEVER, the second ensures that the option is always there as we are not a disarmed populous. I guess that is merely splitting hairs but I don’t see why you are railing against what shooter stated, there is nothing inherently wrong with that statement nor did he claim that it is not the right of the people to dispose of a tyrannical government.
 
That's it?

So the Jews had no choice but to go to the gas/incineration chambers?

So if in any given country the parasites become the majority of the electorate and there are not enough producers and taxpayers to constitute a majority , do the latter just rollover and play dead?

.
Please explain how your questions logically extend form the bolded statementin my post.
:confused:


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.

Was it "Lawful" in Nazi Germany for the Jews to try to shoot at the SS and Gestapo?

Wil it be considered "lawful" for the Taxpayers and producers to violently oppose the US welfare/warfare police state?

.

You’ve opted to be willfully ignorant, then.
 
Please explain how your questions logically extend form the bolded statementin my post.
:confused:



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.

Was it "Lawful" in Nazi Germany for the Jews to try to shoot at the SS and Gestapo?

Wil it be considered "lawful" for the Taxpayers and producers to violently oppose the US welfare/warfare police state?

.

No. The second protects our rights in the manner that shooter states. What you are referring to CANNOT be protected by the second because it is inherently unlawful (and against the constitution).

HOWEVER, the second ensures that the option is always there as we are not a disarmed populous. I guess that is merely splitting hairs but I don’t see why you are railing against what shooter stated, there is nothing inherently wrong with that statement nor did he claim that it is not the right of the people to dispose of a tyrannical government.

Provided it’s understood the Second Amendment doesn’t trump the First Amendment.

The people retain the right to petition government for a redress of grievances via the ballot box and the Federal courts first; the people do not have the right to change government via ‘armed insurrection’ because a minority of the population subjectively perceives the Federal government as ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, it would be un-Constitutional to seek ‘change’ in the context of ‘armed revolt,’ as that would abridge the right of the people to a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4.
 
Was it "Lawful" in Nazi Germany for the Jews to try to shoot at the SS and Gestapo?

Wil it be considered "lawful" for the Taxpayers and producers to violently oppose the US welfare/warfare police state?

.

No. The second protects our rights in the manner that shooter states. What you are referring to CANNOT be protected by the second because it is inherently unlawful (and against the constitution).

HOWEVER, the second ensures that the option is always there as we are not a disarmed populous. I guess that is merely splitting hairs but I don’t see why you are railing against what shooter stated, there is nothing inherently wrong with that statement nor did he claim that it is not the right of the people to dispose of a tyrannical government.

Provided it’s understood the Second Amendment doesn’t trump the First Amendment.

The people retain the right to petition government for a redress of grievances via the ballot box and the Federal courts first; the people do not have the right to change government via ‘armed insurrection’ because a minority of the population subjectively perceives the Federal government as ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, it would be un-Constitutional to seek ‘change’ in the context of ‘armed revolt,’ as that would abridge the right of the people to a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4.

Actually the courts are out as an avenue for a redress of grievances unless you are a criminal, can show financial loss, have special standing granted by the courts or congress or very wealthy. It seems that having your government operating outside it's founding documents doesn't give a citizen adequate harm to get in front of a court. So much for a right if the government can determine to what extent it can be exercised.
 
Same shit, different day. All talk, no action. When does your all's revolution start?
Simple question there m14. What are you guys waiting for? Hillary? Or an excuse? To cold? To hot? To rainy? You know you revolutionaries need to fight in all sorts of weather. Don't wait, seize the initiative. Get the goon squad together and go for it. Right goforit?

Fucking joke thread.
 
Provided it’s understood the Second Amendment doesn’t trump the First Amendment.

The people retain the right to petition government for a redress of grievances via the ballot box and the Federal courts first; the people do not have the right to change government via ‘armed insurrection’ because a minority of the population subjectively perceives the Federal government as ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, it would be un-Constitutional to seek ‘change’ in the context of ‘armed revolt,’ as that would abridge the right of the people to a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4.
Who has made the case you are arguing against? The point isn't armed insurrection, who would they attack? The post office? The point is that a government is more likely to hold itself in check with an armed population vs. unarmed. So the arms are a DEFENSE against tyranny AND self. How hard is that, I even provided quotes from the authors that helped create it.
 
Same shit, different day. All talk, no action. When does your all's revolution start?
Simple question there m14. What are you guys waiting for? Hillary? Or an excuse? To cold? To hot? To rainy? You know you revolutionaries need to fight in all sorts of weather. Don't wait, seize the initiative. Get the goon squad together and go for it. Right goforit?
Fucking joke thread.
Thank you for continuing to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Keep up the good work.
 
Provided it’s understood the Second Amendment doesn’t trump the First Amendment.

The people retain the right to petition government for a redress of grievances via the ballot box...
This is funny. Redress does not equate to voting.
:cuckoo:

Indeed, it would be un-Constitutional to seek ‘change’ in the context of ‘armed revolt,’ as that would abridge the right of the people to a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4.
:lol:
The SCotUS held this... when?
 

Forum List

Back
Top