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 Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.
But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?
Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.Found this....
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]
Wikipedia of all places!!
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.
The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."
The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.
But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?
At one time in history, long ago, it was a sure bet those "changes" didn't mean transforming into something entirely different.....like a Communist Manifesto for example.
You people LOVE "interpretation" because it's the means of revoking of those rights explicitly laid out in the Constitution.
The Venezuelan Constitution was recently "changed". Now they have a dictator.
Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.Found this....
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]
Wikipedia of all places!!
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.
The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."
The 2A isn't about personal self defense.
Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.Found this....
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]
Wikipedia of all places!!
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.
The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."
The 2A isn't about personal self defense.
Said no one
Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.Found this....
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]
Wikipedia of all places!!
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.
The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."
Yes people die every day that still doesn't negate that you have the right to life and the government cannot take it away without due process. You have no right to murder anyoneYou have a natural right to life, but you are saying you don't have a right to liveAre you saying you don't have a right to live?Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.
There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.
Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.
The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
Your point makes no sense. People die all the time, it's part of the life cycle. there is no 'natural law' that says you can't get sick, die in childbirth, have accidents, etc., and live forever. Rights are social constructs and don't derive from nature, that's a fictional premise.
Do you have a point to make?
I believe I made it.
Do you have a point to make?
I believe I made it.
Ah, my favorite word: believe.
Believe means you think something you just made up that doesn't have that much basis in reality.
In this case, it seems to have no basis in reality.
Do you have a point to make?
I believe I made it.
Ah, my favorite word: believe.
Believe means you think something you just made up that doesn't have that much basis in reality.
In this case, it seems to have no basis in reality.
OK...I MADE it.
From the Washington Post of all places,"The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."
I would add, that "the right" has done little to stop them, and in certain cases, actually HELPED further that goal.It was the Framers' intent that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.The Constitution Is Real Easy To Just Change Through The Legislaturesfrigidweirdo said:And get Congress has the ability to change those laws.
It's how the separation of powers work.
That's Why Radicals Need The Courts
SCOTUS Has Said There Are Penumbras Within Our Constitution
That's How Roe v Wade
Was Found Within The Constitution
And The Legislature Doesn't Have Time
To Scribble Up New Legislation
To Over-Turn Precedent Rulings
To The Satisfaction Of The Courts That Set Them
Pretty Simplistic Assertion, fridgid....
The Constitution can be changed. If the Constitution is out of date and a majority of people think it should be changed because of bad interpretation.
But the Constitution has to be interpreted by someone. Who is to say what is the "correct" way of viewing it?
No... it was the Framers intent that the Supreme Court would be the weakest part of the government, the left wing has turned the Supreme Court into an unelected Congress....making and passing laws....
It would seem as though Mr. Jefferson would, ummm, disagree...Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.Found this....
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]
Wikipedia of all places!!
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.
The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."
The 2A isn't about personal self defense.
Leo's point is actually quite obvious, if one can put aside bias, and see through the poor choice of wording....Do you have a point to make?
I believe I made it.
Ah, my favorite word: believe.
Believe means you think something you just made up that doesn't have that much basis in reality.
In this case, it seems to have no basis in reality.
OK...I MADE it.
Fine, and I'm telling you I didn't get it.
So, two choices. Be proud and pretend you made it and everyone can get it, or explain it again so people can get it.
Americans are free because of our Constitutional Republic, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do with being armed.Found this....
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]
Wikipedia of all places!!
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.
The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."
Follow the Money or You'll Get Taken for a RideFound this....
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[9]
Wikipedia of all places!!
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Armed Americans are free Americans. Don't let anyone tell you different.
Lies of 18th Century LizardtariansFrom the Washington Post of all places,"The right to bear arms is for the purpose of lawfull self-defense, not to "preserve freedom."
Preventing the United States from starting a professional army, in fact, was the single most important goal of the Second Amendment. It is hard to recapture this fear today, but during the 18th century few boogeymen were as scary as the standing army — an army made up of professional, full-time soldiers.
By the logic of the 18th century, any society with a professional army could never be truly free. The men in charge of that army could order it to attack the citizens themselves, who, unarmed and unorganized, would be unable to fight back. This was why a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state: To be secure, a society needed to be able to defend itself; to be free, it could not exist merely at the whim of a standing army and its generals."Perspective | What the Second Amendment really meant to the Founders
And some quotes from the Founders:
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it..." -George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton May 2, 1783
Hum, it would seem as though the Founders meant for the 2nd to offer a national defense mechanism while a "standing army" could be raised. So, no, it was not just for self-defense, but for NATIONAL defense as well, hence, freedom.
Are you saying you don't have a right to live?Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.
There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.
Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.
The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
Are you saying you don't have a right to live?Not a fan of the 'natural rights' rubbish, no such thing, and as far as the Constitution goes, states' rights reflect original intent, and the individual states could and did pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, just as they did laws giving preferences and taxing powers to specific religious denominations. I'm not now or ever was personally a fan of the 'states' rights' legal status, but that was the way it was set up, and some consistency is needed in legal precedents, otherwise one ends up with what we have now, rule by judicial whim and fiat, i.e. a lot of political hack appointees with mental illnesses, and assorted fetishists, and half-wits with high esteem making unilateral proclamations, not a functioning legal system.
There is no rule of law, even in lower courts, for most Americans now, so also no respect for government functions and no binding obligations or support for laws any more.
Congratulations on the Third World corruption levels and two Parties run by vile traitors who can't gets themselves enough of Red China and it's 'capitalist system'(snicker); you think Venezuela is bad, do you? ....
Are you trying to be clever? If so, come up with better strawmen.
The 'natural rights' rubbish is an 'Enlightenment' era fiction dreamed up to avoid giving credit to the long march of pagan Greeks and their philosophies, through the Greek influence on Judaism, from there through the long rise of Christian influences on law, culture, traditions, and society. It's just that simple. No such thing as 'Natural Rights', it's just some rubbish sophistry invented by Catholic bashers, trying to peddle moral relativism and other stupid regressive concepts as 'valid'. All the silly fad of 'rationalism' has managed to produce is mass murderers like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
Fictional history ^^^^^^
