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.
Every American, more or less, has the right to OWN WEAPONS and to BE IN THE MILITIA.
There's no right to walk around with one.
That's the US Constitution.
Here's what Congress had to say on it, while debating this amendment.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
This is the clause being spoken about:
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
So, Mr Gerry was worried that this clause would allow the government to say who was religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, and then stop them.
The very next thing he said was "What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
He's talking about the right to be in the militia.
Then he said:
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
So, he's talking about "bear arms" and "militia duty" synonymously.
Mr Jackson came along and said "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
Clearly "bear arms" and "render military service" are being used synonymously. In fact they did change this clause back and forwards a few times between "bear arms" and "render military service" before getting rid of the clause.
"Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent."
I mean, who'd pay a substitute to have people walking around with guns in their daily life?
There's plenty more evidence.
For example the Dick Act in 1902/3 made the "unorganized militia". This was so that individuals wouldn't be able to claim their right to be in the militia/right to bear arms, and force their way into the National Guard. So they made it so people were already in the militia, so they couldn't claim a right to be in it. Clever huh?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[95]
...}No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[95]
Yes they do have the right to be armed at all times.
The Constitution only tries to divide jurisdiction between states and the federal government, so is not the best place to tell what individual rights are.
But the 4th and 5th amendments clearly indicate the right of self defense.
{...
Fourth Amendment
Main article: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Fifth Amendment
Main article: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
...}
The problem with the "right to self defense" is that you're equating the "right to self defense" with the right to own anything that you could defend yourself with.
WRONG.
I could defend myself with cannabis, I could throw it in your face and run away.
I could defend myself with a tank, or a SAM.
None of those alternative defense strategies are practical.
Throwing cannabis in an attacker;s face is not likely going to help, but just make them angry.
Tanks tear up pavement.
A SAM would kill both people it if could go off at all.
Not only is a sidearm the most effective and traditional, but is also a fantastic deterrent.
If I was black I would probably carry a gun legal or not. Life in the black community is hazardous in many large urban areas.So what??
Just because people don't need permits to open carry - that doesn't have anything with St. Louis' murder rate...
That is the fault of blacks and to date.....we haven't found a successful way to make it illegal for blacks to have guns....
However, I think people should immediately be able gun down any black they see carrying a weapon.....because of how violent they are
Which other constitutional rights do we need to check with authorities to enjoy? Do we need to check with Facebook or Twitter to get their opinions on free speech? LMAO, just kidding, we already have them doing that. Now you want cops to determine your 2A rights?It might have been nice if the Texas Legislature consulted police officers to find out how they would feel about people without permits carry firearms in cars that the police officers stop on roads and highways for crimes like suspected road rage.
I was referring to the "stand your ground" rules that are favored by the "open carry" crowd who don't think about the implications of what they are saying. We are living in an era of uncivilized behavior in which some people think that it is acceptable to just walk up to anyone and unload their "feelings" (men in Mississippi reacting to people giving weather reports, women in Nebraska going wild against masked shoppers in supermarkets), which somehow coexists with "stand your ground." trump, who was president, bragged that he would touch people and couldn't help himself, but the "stand your ground" folks say that he gets shot for it.
Are "stand your ground" rules different for women?
So explain the number of little white bitch boys with graying beards caught stockpiling arsenals.
What does the political party of the leadership of any city in the U.S. have to do with crime, anyway?
The drift of what you are saying is that somehow white males are better at leadership, by virtue of their skin color and reproductive organs, but they have not been. They have no greater talent than anyone else. Many are total failures, like abbott in Texas.
chicago.suntimes.com
So explain the number of little white bitch boys with graying beards caught stockpiling arsenals.
What does the political party of the leadership of any city in the U.S. have to do with crime, anyway?
The drift of what you are saying is that somehow white males are better at leadership, by virtue of their skin color and reproductive organs, but they have not been. They have no greater talent than anyone else. Many are total failures, like abbott in Texas.
Or the same bail as:During the same hearing, Navarro released no fewer than three men accused of felony illegal gun possession on their own recognizance — no money down, according to court records.
These bail decisions have real consequences:Navarro allowed three other alleged gun offenders to go home for the same amount Wolfer had to pay.
Records maintained by CWBChicago show that at least 17 people have been charged with murder, attempted murder, or shooting someone while out of jail on affordable bail amounts set by Navarro since 2019. That’s far more than any of the other five judges who handle Chicago’s felony bond court hearings.
Every American, more or less, has the right to OWN WEAPONS and to BE IN THE MILITIA.
There's no right to walk around with one.
That's the US Constitution.
Here's what Congress had to say on it, while debating this amendment.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
This is the clause being spoken about:
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
So, Mr Gerry was worried that this clause would allow the government to say who was religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, and then stop them.
The very next thing he said was "What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
He's talking about the right to be in the militia.
Then he said:
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
So, he's talking about "bear arms" and "militia duty" synonymously.
Mr Jackson came along and said "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
Clearly "bear arms" and "render military service" are being used synonymously. In fact they did change this clause back and forwards a few times between "bear arms" and "render military service" before getting rid of the clause.
"Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent."
I mean, who'd pay a substitute to have people walking around with guns in their daily life?
There's plenty more evidence.
For example the Dick Act in 1902/3 made the "unorganized militia". This was so that individuals wouldn't be able to claim their right to be in the militia/right to bear arms, and force their way into the National Guard. So they made it so people were already in the militia, so they couldn't claim a right to be in it. Clever huh?
That's hardly what's written in the Constitution. It doesn't say "Thou shalt defend thyself with practical means", does it?
There's NOTHING in the Constitution that says you have a right to walk around with a gun. Simples.
All constitutional rights are conditional.Which other constitutional rights do we need to check with authorities to enjoy? Do we need to check with Facebook or Twitter to get their opinions on free speech? LMAO, just kidding, we already have them doing that. Now you want cops to determine your 2A rights?
American Society would have been better of had the English won. Look at Canada.So you would prefer to remain a colonial possession of a corrupt monarchy?
Who’s conditions? Yours? Fuck off.All constitutional rights are conditional.
^^^^Supporters of 2nd Amendment have blood of suicide and murder victims on their hands.
But, self-defense with a firearm is ~10x more common than murder with a foirearm and >4x more common that suicide with a firearmIn reality, justifiable homicide is rare.
For no rational reason whatsoever,I oppose guns 100%.
^^^^Those who support the Second Amendment are enablers of over 10,000 murders and over 20,000 suicides each year.
^^^^And white people who are not used to hardship are more likely to kill themselves.
And you choose to lie.1) You use very abusive language
^^^2) Guns are used in over 10,000 murders and 20,000 suicides each year. Those who support gun rights bear guilt for their deaths.
For no rational reason whatsoever,1) I oppose private guns 100%.
