Reason for Right to Bear Arms

[JakeStarkey]

What the Founders thought then must be modified by the exigenices of time and technology and culture and custom.

No reason exists at all for any American to own an assault weapon.

 

[SniperFire]

What the Founders thought then must be modified by the exigenices of time and technology and culture and custom.

No reason exists at all for any American to own an assault weapon.

The right to bear arms predated the Founders. They only mentioned the inalienable right shall not be infringed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You, an internet poster, can have an opinion, but that opinion in no way is binding on anyone else.

You, like me, like all living in this country, are subject to the legislatures and the opinions of the supreme courts of the nation.

You don't like that? Move to Somalia.

What the Founders thought then must be modified by the exigenices of time and technology and culture and custom.

No reason exists at all for any American to own an assault weapon.

The right to bear arms predated the Founders. They only mentioned the inalienable right shall not be infringed.

 

[SniperFire]

You, an internet poster, can have an opinion, but that opinion in no way is binding on anyone else.

You, like me, like all living in this country, are subject to the legislatures and the opinions of the supreme courts of the nation.

You don't like that? Move to Somalia.

What the Founders thought then must be modified by the exigenices of time and technology and culture and custom.

No reason exists at all for any American to own an assault weapon.

The right to bear arms predated the Founders. They only mentioned the inalienable right shall not be infringed.

It isn't an opinion, dick. It is fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, it is only an opinion. Act on it in violation of our laws and see how you are treated by LEO and the courts.

 

[rightwinger]

What the Founders thought then must be modified by the exigenices of time and technology and culture and custom.

No reason exists at all for any American to own an assault weapon.

The right to bear arms predated the Founders. They only mentioned the inalienable right shall not be infringed.

They never mentioned gun ownership as an inalienable right.......only Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

 

[BlindBoo]

The early British colonists, imbued with the English distrust for standing military establishments as a threat to civil liberties, incorporated the tradition of the citizen-soldier. In 1636, the first militia unit, the North Regiment of Boston, was formed, followed two years later by the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, the oldest American military unit in existence.

One of the first acts of Parliament following the accession of William and Mary to the throne of England as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was to restore the old constitution with its provision that every man may arm for self-defense.

In 1760, Britain began adopting mercantilist policies toward her American colonies. By 1768, these had produced such hardships and a reversal of the previous prosperity that British troops had to be sent to suppress riots and collect taxes.

Between 1768-1777, the British policy was to disarm the American colonists by whatever means possible, from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, seizure, and eventually shooting persons bearing arms.

By 1774, the British had embargoed shipments of arms to America, and the Americans responded by arming themselves and forming independent militia companies.

On the night of 18 April 1775, General Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, dispatched several hundred soldiers of the Boston garrison under the command of Major Pitcairn to seize the arms and munitions stored by the illegal colonial militias in Concord.

When Pitcairn encountered the Minutemen on the Lexington common blocking his way, he demanded that they throw down their arms and disperse. Although willing to disperse, the Minutemen were not willing to surrender their arms. The rest is history.

Three days after the British retreat from Concord, General Gage refused to allow Bostonians to leave the city without depositing their arms and ammunition with a Selectman at Faneuil Hall, to be returned at a suitable time after their return. When the citizens of Boston foolishly complied, Gage seized the arms and refused to permit their owners to leave the city. ("Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms," July 6, 1775.)

The news of Gage's seizure of the arms of Bostonians not engaged in hostilities and rumors of British troops sailing from England to seize the arms of the colonists swept the colonies.

The colonists considered these actions a violation of their constitutionally guaranteed right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense, as indeed they were.

What gun control laws did Great Britain have when the American colonies revolted? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[SniperFire]

What the Founders thought then must be modified by the exigenices of time and technology and culture and custom.

No reason exists at all for any American to own an assault weapon.

The right to bear arms predated the Founders. They only mentioned the inalienable right shall not be infringed.

They never mentioned gun ownership as an inalienable right.......only Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Sure they did. If I right cannot be infringed, it is .... wait for it... wait for it.... inalienable.


You are most welcome!

 

[JakeStarkey]

SniperFire, your opinion is not law, period. Find some recent case law and SCOTUS rulings that back your right to own an assault weapon. Keep in mind the Clinton-era ban that was constitutional.

 

[SniperFire]

SniperFire, your opinion is not law, period. Find some recent case law and SCOTUS rulings that back your right to own an assault weapon. Keep in mind the Clinton-era ban that was constitutional.

A right which is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights as something which cannot be infringed is, by default - unalienable.

Use some common sense.

 

[SniperFire]

SniperFire, your opinion is not law, period. Find some recent case law and SCOTUS rulings that back your right to own an assault weapon. Keep in mind the Clinton-era ban that was constitutional.

You are struggling.


I am here to help.

The question becomes what is the definition of 'bearing arms,' not whether bearing arms is an inalienable right.

 

[BlindBoo]

SniperFire, your opinion is not law, period. Find some recent case law and SCOTUS rulings that back your right to own an assault weapon. Keep in mind the Clinton-era ban that was constitutional.

A right which is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights as something which cannot be infringed is, by default - unalienable.

Use some common sense.

Like the right to use recreational substances like alcohol? No wait they took that right away before it was unalienable? Then they gave it back?

However the right to bear arms for self defense goes back.

 

[SniperFire]

SniperFire, your opinion is not law, period. Find some recent case law and SCOTUS rulings that back your right to own an assault weapon. Keep in mind the Clinton-era ban that was constitutional.

A right which is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights as something which cannot be infringed is, by default - unalienable.

Use some common sense.

Like the right to use recreational substances like alcohol? No wait they took that right away before it was unalienable? Then they gave it back?

However the right to bear arms for self defense goes back.

You have your inalienable rights and privileges mixed up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SniperFire is mixed up, our courts and leges are not.

 

[BlindBoo]

A right which is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights as something which cannot be infringed is, by default - unalienable.

Use some common sense.

Like the right to use recreational substances like alcohol? No wait they took that right away before it was unalienable? Then they gave it back?

However the right to bear arms for self defense goes back.

You have your inalienable rights and privileges mixed up.

There is no amendment for the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Those are considered inalienable. Any rights derived from the many amendments to the constitution can also be taken away by an new amendment.

 

[SniperFire]

Sorry, Jake, But you cannot offer rebuttal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SniperFire, the only proper rebuttal is that your opinion and belief are not fact.

Only the Constitution, the legislatures' law and the supreme courts' rulings are facts.

In fact your opinion does not count except to you. That is what it is.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Because they knew NaziCons with short dicks were fearful and paranoid and would need an arsenal to feel safe...?

Boy, thoughtful insight, from a dickless wonder of a libtard.

 

[cutter]

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

Link? Or just an opinion? I think the Founding Fathers Intent was for citizens to have everything they needed to protect us from our own government. Not just what that government wants us to have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

It was their intent that the arms would be of suitable use to a militia.
Those modern day evil black rifles.