The NRA

Frankly, I have no firm opinion on this ongoing debate anyway because I can see both sides of the issue. A conundrum which I usually don't get into. I will admit that I have lived in neighborhoods where I felt I NEEDED a gun, but I'm not sure what my emotional state would have been if I had every NEEDED to use it.

I give that a lot of thought myself as a CCW holder. Being forced to kill someone in self defense means taking everything that person is and is ever going to be...they are someones child, likely someones spouse or someones parent...and I'd have to live with that.

I hope no one ever puts either of us in a position where we have to find out.
 
Those were all old guys commenting on a well-armed MILITIA. The Second Amendment has taken on a whole new meaning, which is why courts continue to grapple with it.


See......retarded. Try not to comment on what you can't comprehend.

The courts continue to grapple with it because they wish to redefine it....to appease their political supporters. The history and definition of the 2A is quite clear for those with half a brain.
 
I've posted these before, but it never hurts to post them again:

.
.
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . .
.
.
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.

.
.
.
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
.
.
.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

.
.
.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

- Thomas Jefferson
.
.
.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
.
.
.
.
Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside.
.
.
.
.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.

.
.
.
.
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

.
.
.
.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
.
.
.
.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.


Those were all old guys commenting on a well-armed MILITIA. The Second Amendment has taken on a whole new meaning, which is why courts continue to grapple with it.

Funny then that not one of them uses the word militia. But that's likely only due to the fact that they are not refering to militias, but people and citizens. :)

Heller v Washington D.C. ended any 'grappling' by leftist activist judges. The Supreme Court determine the Second Amendment is an individual right of the people, and always has been.

Link to Heller v District of Columbia on Wikipedia

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It is the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals in addition to a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias[1].

 
Last edited:
The First Amendment protects the peoples rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment guarantees the First.
.
.
.
.

That simplistic statement is why lunatics think they are entitlted to own weapons. You're basically saying that a person is protected by the Second Amendment if he decides to start firing on some poor schmuck making a political statement on a soapbox in Central Park.

What you obviously don't get, is that the 2nd amendment was less about shooting soap boxers, and WAY MORE about being able to protect yourself from a runaway government bent on removing the liberties many fought so hard to provide us with.

While it's obvious that the government has gone and far outdone the civilian population in available weaponry, the right to bear arms still has a purpose.

I'm sure the elderly lady in Pennsylvania last year that held a would-be home invader at gunpoint with her firearm until the cops arrived to haul his ass away, would agree. Or the 91 year old man in Florida earlier this year who held TWO home invaders in check while defending his wife. Too lazy to find the links at the moment, but if you'd really like them, I'll retrieve them.

It's like someone else said earlier in the thread, the criminals don't give a shit what's available or not available, what's legal or not legal, and what congress might think about it all. They'll be getting their weapons REGARDLESS, just like even though there's a war on drugs, and a war on terrorism, those two things being fought still widely exist, and pose threats to society.

As long as there's going to be criminals out there looking to use guns to potentially commit a crime against me, I will fight to keep my right to have that same gun to protect myself from that crime.
 
Frankly, I have no firm opinion on this ongoing debate anyway because I can see both sides of the issue. A conundrum which I usually don't get into. I will admit that I have lived in neighborhoods where I felt I NEEDED a gun, but I'm not sure what my emotional state would have been if I had every NEEDED to use it.

I give that a lot of thought myself as a CCW holder. Being forced to kill someone in self defense means taking everything that person is and is ever going to be...they are someones child, likely someones spouse or someones parent...and I'd have to live with that.

I hope no one ever puts either of us in a position where we have to find out.

what if he is going to kill you?
 
Last edited:
As usual, the left who've responded to the OP come to prove their abject ignorance of Inalienable Human Rights and the responsibilities which sustain them... thus demonstrating that the ideological left is wholly antithetical to America and that for America to survive, the Left, on the whole will need to be SILENCED... There is no RIGHT to undermine the rights of others and the ideological left has no intellectual means to understand that what they're doing is just that.

To those leftists who have proudly declared your intention to, at some point, join with the government to strip Americans of our firearms; in so doing you will have actively taken action to usurp our rights...

For this, we will kill you with supreme prejudice where you're found and when we're finished with you and your comrades; we'll continue on to gather up those who sent you...

And when we're finished, America can will return to promoting individual liberty in a world where no man will tolerate any speech which stinks of the corrosive stench of "Moderate, Centrist, progressive, liberalism..."
 
I've posted these before, but it never hurts to post them again:

.
.
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . .
.
.
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.

.
.
.
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
.
.
.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

.
.
.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

- Thomas Jefferson
.
.
.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
.
.
.
.
Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside.
.
.
.
.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.

.
.
.
.
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

.
.
.
.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
.
.
.
.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.


Those were all old guys commenting on a well-armed MILITIA. The Second Amendment has taken on a whole new meaning, which is why courts continue to grapple with it.

Maybe a couple quotes from a more modern source would help.

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom" John F. Kennedy

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny." Hubert Humphrey
 
Maybe a couple quotes from a more modern source would help.

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom" John F. Kennedy

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny." Hubert Humphrey

thanks Citizen....now since we are updated i cant see anyone giving the old "out of time Bull".....which never held water as it is....
 
To play devil's advocate, if, as seems probable, the framers of the constitution put in the second amendment as a means of the people to oppose the government, wouldn't using that as a major point for retaining the right to bear arms by private citizens be an argument for those same private citizens to have access to the same weaponry as the government? At the time the constitution was written, was that not a parity (or nearly so) between the weapons of the civilian population and the military? In order to maintain that balance, shouldn't private citizens own similar weapons?

I'm curious to see what kind of responses this gets :)

Just to bring it up before anyone asks, I am for private gun ownership, but I agree with there being restrictions involved.
 
To play devil's advocate, if, as seems probable, the framers of the constitution put in the second amendment as a means of the people to oppose the government, wouldn't using that as a major point for retaining the right to bear arms by private citizens be an argument for those same private citizens to have access to the same weaponry as the government? At the time the constitution was written, was that not a parity (or nearly so) between the weapons of the civilian population and the military? In order to maintain that balance, shouldn't private citizens own similar weapons?

I'm curious to see what kind of responses this gets :)

Just to bring it up before anyone asks, I am for private gun ownership, but I agree with there being restrictions involved.

Yes it would... and it stands as just that.

Of course, there are 1.5 million americans who have access to the same weapons as the government, because they are the ones the government has operating them...

And were such a government to try and usurp the means of the Americans to own and bear their fire arms, many of those who operate those weapons would turn theose weapons directly on that government.

Of course this is why the US left is so anxious to feminize the US military by promoting the acceptance of homosexuals into the US Military... as such would drive many Americans out of the Military and draw leftists into such...

Which is why I have long said that the drive to do so would come some years AFTER the US military if forced to provide for the acceptance of the homosexual and other such misfits.

So, where such should come to pass, one would be well advised to prepare for the coming of the apocalypse shortly thereafter.
 
To play devil's advocate, if, as seems probable, the framers of the constitution put in the second amendment as a means of the people to oppose the government, wouldn't using that as a major point for retaining the right to bear arms by private citizens be an argument for those same private citizens to have access to the same weaponry as the government? At the time the constitution was written, was that not a parity (or nearly so) between the weapons of the civilian population and the military? In order to maintain that balance, shouldn't private citizens own similar weapons?

I'm curious to see what kind of responses this gets :)

Just to bring it up before anyone asks, I am for private gun ownership, but I agree with there being restrictions involved.

IMHO, the second amendment guarantee is limited to the type of firearm that is used by an individual soldier, and would not include squad weapons, those used by a division, or those used by an army, such as nukes, guided missiles, tanks, and etc.
 

Forum List

Back
Top