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.
Honest debate? Anti gun nutters can't even be honest about the weapons they are talking about, much less the type of firearms protected by the second amendment.Actually, the reason we're talking about gun control is a score of first graders riddled with as many as seven bullets apiece.You people and your esoteric fight against "tyranny"! You have no idea what tyranny is!
Have any of you been told you cannot vote? Have any of you been told you cannot trade at certain stores? Have any of you ever been lynched? Have any of you ever been told where to sit at lunch counters? On buses? In movie houses?
Well, there was an entire class of American citizens who endured precisely that style of state sanctioned tyranny.
Did they resort to open insurrection? Did they arm themselves and fight the clear oppression they were living under?
No. They took to the streets and peacefully marched. They boycotted. The performed other acts of civil disobedience. And they won their rights under the protection of a well regulated militia; the National Guard.
But some of them were not satisfied with the speed of the government response to their demands. They advocated arming themselves. They advocated open armed insurrection. And that's when some folks got very very nervous.
The Black Panthers made people very nervous. And who got nervous the most? Why Conservatives! The very people who are advocating arming the population and being prepared for open armed insurrection. Ironic, ain't it?
Never heard of the Black Codes?
How about the Gun Control Act of 1968, than banned firearms that impoverished blacks could afford?
But I think you are exactly right.
The reason we are talking gun control today is the same reason the it was passed in 1968.
Why, when rifles only account for a miniscule 3% of all homicides...and so called assault rifles account for only a minute fraction of that percentage, is that the one firearm that the leftists are so terribly concerned over?
I think such a death toll and heartbreaking tragedy deserves an honest debate. And if it doesn't, I truly dread what level of tragedy would merit such a debate.
total fucking bull shit.Your opinion deliberatly runs contrary to established jurisprudence.Federalist 46 tends more to support the argument of some that the 2nd amendment protects the right of states to form and arm militias,
not the right of any individual to own any sort of weapon.
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
I told you what Federalist 46 says. 46 was brought up.
Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was designed to prevent injustices committed by the British against the colonies.
The right of individuals to own personal firearms was never in dispute at that time. It exists as a right in the same way abortion was determined to be a right in Roe v Wade.
You're one of the bigger morons in this forum.
I'm trying for biggest. I am very competitive in that way.
Except, of course, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is spcefically mentioned in and protected by the constitution, whereas the right to an abortion, and its constitutional protection, had to be manufactured.Your opinion deliberatly runs contrary to established jurisprudence.Federalist 46 tends more to support the argument of some that the 2nd amendment protects the right of states to form and arm militias,
not the right of any individual to own any sort of weapon.
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
I told you what Federalist 46 says. 46 was brought up.
Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was designed to prevent injustices committed by the British against the colonies.
The right of individuals to own personal firearms was never in dispute at that time. It exists as a right in the same way abortion was determined to be a right in Roe v Wade.
It means that the right to keep and bear arms is 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 homeThe 2nd Amendment is like a Zen riddle. Who knows what the hell it means in today's world.
REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting
By Michael Geer
01/11/2013
You know it. I know it. The unspoken truth is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is about citizens resisting and overcoming tyranny. A common law and natural law right considered for 200+ years as an inalienable right. Speaking plainly, the 2nd is our bulwark against government which becomes despotic. Armed free citizens are the final bulwark against tyranny by local, state or federal government. When the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights committed our people to founding a new Nation guns were natural and necessary. For putting food on the table and wait for it, personal defense against hostilities
Armed citizens have a long history of taking action to correct despotic governments. Feudal economies faded away due in no small part to enough peasants acquiring arms. And the will to use them.
Federalist 46. James Madison, known as the author of most of the Bill of Rights said of arms and the common man ...
Read more:
Blog: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting
It means that the right to keep and bear arms is 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 homeThe 2nd Amendment is like a Zen riddle. Who knows what the hell it means in today's world.
You say this like it is significant -- you are apparently unaware that it took caselaw to establish the specifics of ALL your rights.And that took caselaw to unmoor..It means that the right to keep and bear arms is 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 homeThe 2nd Amendment is like a Zen riddle. Who knows what the hell it means in today's world.
You say this like it is significant -- you are apparently unaware that it took caselaw to establish the specifics of ALL your rights.And that took caselaw to unmoor..It means that the right to keep and bear arms is 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
Explain, specifically, how.It is significant.You say this like it is significant -- you are apparently unaware that it took caselaw to establish the specifics of ALL your rights.And that took caselaw to unmoor..
The Constitution provides for a standing army.The Constitution provisions for a part time citizen army.
Except, of course, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is spcefically mentioned in and protected by the constitution, whereas the right to an abortion, and its constitutional protection, had to be manufactured.Your opinion deliberatly runs contrary to established jurisprudence.
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
I told you what Federalist 46 says. 46 was brought up.
Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was designed to prevent injustices committed by the British against the colonies.
The right of individuals to own personal firearms was never in dispute at that time. It exists as a right in the same way abortion was determined to be a right in Roe v Wade.
Other than that, sure, they're the same.
Good to see you agree that 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
total fucking bull shit.Your opinion deliberatly runs contrary to established jurisprudence.
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
I told you what Federalist 46 says. 46 was brought up.
Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was designed to prevent injustices committed by the British against the colonies.
The right of individuals to own personal firearms was never in dispute at that time. It exists as a right in the same way abortion was determined to be a right in Roe v Wade.
The talk about tyranny so far amounts to typical radio talk show hyperbole. No one here is living under tyranny. That's not to say tyranny cannot exist here as it has. But the Civil rights movement proved that tyranny can be repressed by means other than armed insurrection. That's not to say armed insurrection hasn't happened here. But killing 168 innocents at a federal building certainly wasn't on the minds of the founding fathers as they compromised and drafted the Bill of Rights.
If any of you wannabe Rambos wants to tell us all about the tyranny you suffer with, we're glad to help. But a squabble about the top marginal tax rate or health care or any other issue you have with the current President of the United States pales before lynching and segregated lunch counters and repressed voting rights, doesn't it?
It's already been established that the government can strictly limit ownership and use of machine guns, aka automatic weapons (not to mention bazookas, grenade launchers, RPG's, and so on)
and since such weapons are standard issue in the military,
the idea that the individual has the right to arm himself in a manner equivalent to the government, for the purpose of resisting government 'tyranny',
has been rendered nonsensical.
Except, of course, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is spcefically mentioned in and protected by the constitution, whereas the right to an abortion, and its constitutional protection, had to be manufactured.I told you what Federalist 46 says. 46 was brought up.
Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was designed to prevent injustices committed by the British against the colonies.
The right of individuals to own personal firearms was never in dispute at that time. It exists as a right in the same way abortion was determined to be a right in Roe v Wade.
Other than that, sure, they're the same.
Good to see you agree that 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
The right of the people in the 2nd amendment is a reference to the right of the people of the states to have a militia.
A ban on personal ownership of machine guns, or semi-automatic assault weapons, does not violate the 2nd amendment because it does not prevent the states from arming their militias with such weapons,
nor does it does not violate the de facto right of the people to own weapons for hunting, sport, or self defense,
because viable alternatives to the banned weapons are permitted.
You're one of the bigger morons in this forum.I'm trying for biggest. I am very competitive in that way.
Don't feel bad. It's okay.
Our right to keep and bear arms totally protects your right to free speech.
-- Paravani
total fucking bull shit.I told you what Federalist 46 says. 46 was brought up.
Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was designed to prevent injustices committed by the British against the colonies.
The right of individuals to own personal firearms was never in dispute at that time. It exists as a right in the same way abortion was determined to be a right in Roe v Wade.
It's already been established that the government can strictly limit ownership and use of machine guns, aka automatic weapons (not to mention bazookas, grenade launchers, RPG's, and so on)
and since such weapons are standard issue in the military,
the idea that the individual has the right to arm himself in a manner equivalent to the government, for the purpose of resisting government 'tyranny',
has been rendered nonsensical.
The talk about tyranny so far amounts to typical radio talk show hyperbole. No one here is living under tyranny. That's not to say tyranny cannot exist here as it has. But the Civil rights movement proved that tyranny can be repressed by means other than armed insurrection. That's not to say armed insurrection hasn't happened here. But killing 168 innocents at a federal building certainly wasn't on the minds of the founding fathers as they compromised and drafted the Bill of Rights.
If any of you wannabe Rambos wants to tell us all about the tyranny you suffer with, we're glad to help. But a squabble about the top marginal tax rate or health care or any other issue you have with the current President of the United States pales before lynching and segregated lunch counters and repressed voting rights, doesn't it?
The mere act of Congress passing laws the Right doesn't like is now under the category of 'tyranny' according to the rightwing propaganda machine.
