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.
Patently false.
The Second Amendment is simply another check and balance built into the Constitution.
Arms are arms...not canons, not howitzers, not F-18's...arms.
This "Thermonuclear bomb" hyperbole is foolishness.
It absolutely is not a check..at least not the way you folks think it is.
There is no clause, word, letter in the constitution that fosters the notion you can take up arms against the federal government, none. In fact..it is the EXACT opposite. There are several reasons in the Constitution the federal government can lawfully declare war. Of those are included invasion and insurrection.
The "check" was a guard against a standing professional army under federal control. What the constitution prescribed were regional militias made up of citizens that would fill into an army as needed.
That' "check" has been completely obliterated.
A history lesson proves this a false argument.
From District of Columbia v. Heller:
The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The People ARE the Militia. That's why their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.That's the whole amendment, Marty. There's nothing about hunting or self defense in it. And nothing in the whole constitution that eludes to that.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The People ARE the Militia. That's why their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.That's the whole amendment, Marty. There's nothing about hunting or self defense in it. And nothing in the whole constitution that eludes to that.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why is there a Militia?
To fight off oppressive Gov't be they State or Federal.
The Militia was never intended to be reorganized into National Guard Units to be deployed to Foreign Entanglements either.
The People ARE the Militia. That's why their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.That's the whole amendment, Marty. There's nothing about hunting or self defense in it. And nothing in the whole constitution that eludes to that.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why is there a Militia?
To fight off oppressive Gov't be they State or Federal.
The Militia was never intended to be reorganized into National Guard Units to be deployed to Foreign Entanglements either.
It absolutely is not a check..at least not the way you folks think it is.
There is no clause, word, letter in the constitution that fosters the notion you can take up arms against the federal government, none. In fact..it is the EXACT opposite. There are several reasons in the Constitution the federal government can lawfully declare war. Of those are included invasion and insurrection.
The "check" was a guard against a standing professional army under federal control. What the constitution prescribed were regional militias made up of citizens that would fill into an army as needed.
That' "check" has been completely obliterated.
A history lesson proves this a false argument.
From District of Columbia v. Heller:The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well it's not.
And you have to cite a decision by a very conservative court to back up your opinion.
By the way..Heller interferes with "state's rights"...which is awful hypocritical of judges like Scalia and Thomas.
Their argument is also a load of crap. Since we have a standing professional army under federal control. Which by the way..if they really believed the bullshit they put out in their "opinion" they would abolish.
Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not abolish any rights.
Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.
Following the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the several States began submitting amendments to Congress for consideration. By September of 1789, Congress had reduced approximately 210 separate amendments to 12. The amendments were inserted into a congressional resolution and submitted to the several States for consideration. Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.
A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not containthe preamble or only include the last paragraph. The most important paragraph is the first one because it discloses the intent of the proposed amendments.
Then why can't we have automatic weapons, with the same ease of acquisition and possession as a semi-automatic weapon?
Because most gun owners are not the unreasonable "I WANT A HOWITZER GWARRR!" morons that the gun control people make them out to be. Most can see the need for restrictions on full autos, as well as felons not having weapons, and permits for concealed carry of handguns in public areas.
Semi autos, however, meet the intent of the 2nd amendment from both a personal protection standpoint, and a preservation of liberties standpoint.
That's nonsense.
First, full autos are already highly restricted. Second why are full autos any more lethal than semis? They aren't. They are less lethal. Third, I must be one of those unreasonable ones. We've had penalties for felons owning guns since 1968 at least and I haven't seen any lessening in felons with guns. Actually the opposite. Finally, if the 2A is about "militia" then it should be a right for any citizen to own and carry the same weapons the military issues to individual soldiers, i.e. select fire rifles, shotguns, and handguns.
I was refering to howtizer wanting people as morons. I respectfully disagree on full auto weapons, as to me they meet the designation of a crew serviced weapon, even if the modern ones can be carried by one person.
Patently false.
The Second Amendment is simply another check and balance built into the Constitution.
Arms are arms...not canons, not howitzers, not F-18's...arms.
This "Thermonuclear bomb" hyperbole is foolishness.
The entire point of the post, which you missed, is that the second amendment doesn't give people the right to own guns for self defense or overthrowing the government.
Then why can't we have automatic weapons, with the same ease of acquisition and possession as a semi-automatic weapon?
We can't have automatic weapons because FDR packed the court with scumbag left-wingers who ruled that we can't.
Patently false.
The Second Amendment is simply another check and balance built into the Constitution.
Arms are arms...not canons, not howitzers, not F-18's...arms.
This "Thermonuclear bomb" hyperbole is foolishness.
Machine guns and RPGs qualify as "arms." I don't see how anyone can claim they don't.
Patently false.
The Second Amendment is simply another check and balance built into the Constitution.
Arms are arms...not canons, not howitzers, not F-18's...arms.
This "Thermonuclear bomb" hyperbole is foolishness.
Machine guns and RPGs qualify as "arms." I don't see how anyone can claim they don't.
I think reasonable people can disagree on what reaches the threshold of a 'crew serviced weapon', but that reasonable people can also see this ability to deploy as a threshold between someone's 'right to bear arms' and the crossover into a 'right to maintain their own private army'.
I think reasonable people can disagree on what reaches the threshold of a 'crew serviced weapon', but that reasonable people can also see this ability to deploy as a threshold between someone's 'right to bear arms' and the crossover into a 'right to maintain their own private army'.
Or private death squad of one. Waiting, like a ticking bomb, for the one event, one day that sets that bomb off... Then we all pay for this 'freedom' fantasy. This 'right' to own a big loud destroyer of paper targets and cans. because that's all you ever really shoot at.
Think of all the hundreds of thousands of weapons purchased every year to shoot at paper and can. You guys are the biggest suckers out there, and 100 times a week, another American pays with their life so you can play out your pathetic little rambo fantasy.
The People ARE the Militia. That's why their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.That's the whole amendment, Marty. There's nothing about hunting or self defense in it. And nothing in the whole constitution that eludes to that.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why is there a Militia?
To fight off oppressive Gov't be they State or Federal.
The Militia was never intended to be reorganized into National Guard Units to be deployed to Foreign Entanglements either.
Has anybody yet posted how abolishing the 2nd amendment will change their lives in a negative way?
OH, you won't be able to shoot as many bottles and cans.
Has anybody yet posted how abolishing the 2nd amendment will change their lives in a negative way?
OH, you won't be able to shoot as many bottles and cans.
Destroying our Constitution certainly won't improve lives, bub.
