Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.
not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons
the NRA blocks any scientific studys because they would prove that the nr 1 danger to the safety of citizens in the USA is the NRA. the NRA is the Nr 1 terrorist organization in the USA
the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.
not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons
you have to join a "well regulated" militia to bear arms.
join the national guard
otherwise your just a criminal with guns
question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?
how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?
where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?
did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?
Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.
The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.
for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.
question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?
how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?
where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?
did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?
Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.
The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.
for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.
We The People are the militia. The expectation was that every citizen could show up with arms as needed.
question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?
how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?
where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?
did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?
Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.
The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.
for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.
We The People are the militia. The expectation was that every citizen could show up with arms as needed.
So one of you finally admits it: You want terrorists and criminals to have guns.
question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?
how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?
where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?
did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?
Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.
The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.
for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.
We The People are the militia. The expectation was that every citizen could show up with arms as needed.
So one of you finally admits it: You want terrorists and criminals to have guns.
No genius. Even under English Common Law convicted felons were exempt from carrying weapons. They aren't considered free citizens.
Convicted felons aren't free citizens and have limited rights. It isn't really that hard of a concept.
Until "terrorists" are convicted in a court of law (that pesky Due Process thing the Constitution guarantees), there is no reason they should have their rights abrogated. It is far too easy to end up on a secret list with no recourse these days. Convict them or kill them if they are threats, otherwise they still get their rights like free men.
"We trust you to vote, but not to carry guns because you're a threat" does not a free citizen make.
"We trust you to vote, but not to carry guns because you're a threat" does not a free citizen make.
You are less free if the government can tell you you cannot own a weapon to defend yourself"We trust you to vote, but not to carry guns because you're a threat" does not a free citizen make.
No one even knows what that means. No one's free unless they have a gun? How about a tennis racquet?
You are less free if the government can tell you you cannot own a weapon to defend yourself
It certainly is the best weaponYou are less free if the government can tell you you cannot own a weapon to defend yourself
Really? So a gun is the ONLY weapon you can defend yourself with? Or did you use the term "weapon" as your; I didn't say THAT?
Agreed, not to mention the most important point; the fact the Founders suppported the fundamental right of self-defense.Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Agreed, not to mention the most important point; the fact the Founders suppported the fundamental right of self-defense.Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.
LWers believe the Constitutional grants us rights. What they don't understand is that we already have all of our rights and the Constitution limits government. Anyone who reads and understands the controversy of surrounding even writing the Bill of Rights has an understanding of our unalienable rights.
Read the Federalist Papers.Agreed, not to mention the most important point; the fact the Founders suppported the fundamental right of self-defense.Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.
LWers believe the Constitutional grants us rights. What they don't understand is that we already have all of our rights and the Constitution limits government. Anyone who reads and understands the controversy of surrounding even writing the Bill of Rights has an understanding of our unalienable rights.
SCOTUS never recognized this right until 2008. And please link up where the founders felt personal, home defense should be implicit in the 2nd Amendment.
An unalienable right doesn't need SCOTUS to back it up. Do you really need a ruling by SCOTUS to have a child? Eat? Defend yourself?SCOTUS never recognized this right until 2008. And please link up where the founders felt personal, home defense should be implicit in the 2nd Amendment.
