The REAL purpose of 2nd Amendment; The no B.S. truth

[martybegan]

[

Its not a privilage, its a right, no matter how your facist mind thinks.

To remove a right, a judge and/or jury has to adjudicate you. Any other way and what you get is burecratic tyranny, when someone can just decide "person X doesnt get his rights"

This still does not affect my right, as a person with a spotless criminal and mental record to own a firearm.

There are no "rights".

There are only privilages society lets you have.

It can't be a "right" if it can be taken away from you.

And frankly, guy, I would hardly call your mental record to be "spotless". I am wondering what would happen if we made every gun owner get a psych evaluation before they could buy a gun.

Clearly, this is a privilage we shouldn't let people have if they can't keep the undesirables from getting them.

There are inherent rights every person has. Your position is that the state has more power than then person in all matters. It makes you basically the equivalent of Stalin.

A consitutional right can be taken away by amendment. An inherent right cannot, but you may have to fight for it to maintain it.

And basing someones mental state via an anonymous message board is as stupid as you are.

It is not up to me to prevent criminals from getting/using guns. It is up to the government with the caveat that said methods cannot interfere with my right to own one.

Who said its supposed to be easy?

 

[martybegan]

[

Again with the Kellerman twaddle. and if CDC was prevented from studying gun stuff in general, wouldnt it prevent them from providing for a study?

You are still a fucking liar, and cannot admit it.

And how is compiling other studies and providing commentary on them not "studying" them?

Keep stretching it dumbo.

Because that's not studying. That's just compliling data.

There's a difference, guy. "Well, this report says 65,000 DGU's and this report says 3 Million" isn't a study.

A study is when you find out how many DGU's there actually are. A study is when you actually define what a DGU is, and then document how many there were.

That's what Kellerman actually did. He went into Seattle, he compiled police reports on every gun death, and then he determined how many were suicides, how many were accidents, how many were defensive killings and how many were domestic killings.

That's a Study. And the NRA wasn't having any of that shit. Because they have a profit motive in keeping stupid people like you thinking you need a gun to protect yourself.

Kellerman's "Study" is twat-spittle, and has been debunked previously.

Your definition of what is and is not a study is bullshit, basically made up to attempt to shore up your idiotic point.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Left-Wing Fanatics likely relish the idea of easy to obtain military style weapons for they are generally interested in change NOW; they're revolutionaries. They do not believe in the rule of law, or generally care who gets hurt when they act. No different than Right-Wings Fanatics, aka, Radicals.

Moderates, both conservative and liberal, understand that some controls are necessary to limit access of guns capable of mass destruction of human beings and keep these and other guns out of the hands of Revolutionaries, Radicals, the Mentally Ill and Violent Felons.

The NRA and others who profit personally as gun purveyors have seen the carnage caused by guns and simply don't care. They use the Second Amendment as cover, claiming Liberty demands that no restrictions on guns are constitutional and one restriction will lead to another and eventually to the confiscation of all guns from citizens.

change any reference you have in your tirade from "guns" to "free speech" and the NRA to the ACLU and I would assume you would support the same restrictions?

And we KNOW the overall goal is to keep the control of weapons with the government only, its been stated by gun controllers all along.

Not at all. You're free and always will be to walk into a movie theater or first grade class and yell and scream - you might end up in a rubber room for evaluation but no one would die.

Only a true paranoid schizophrenic 'knows' the government's plan (and who in the government might that be?) is to keep control of all weapons? Sane people understand guns are everywhere in the United States, there are more guns than people (I've heard). How would the government implement such a program (give everyone a cupcake for surrendering a gun?).

 

[martybegan]

You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Left-Wing Fanatics likely relish the idea of easy to obtain military style weapons for they are generally interested in change NOW; they're revolutionaries. They do not believe in the rule of law, or generally care who gets hurt when they act. No different than Right-Wings Fanatics, aka, Radicals.

Moderates, both conservative and liberal, understand that some controls are necessary to limit access of guns capable of mass destruction of human beings and keep these and other guns out of the hands of Revolutionaries, Radicals, the Mentally Ill and Violent Felons.

The NRA and others who profit personally as gun purveyors have seen the carnage caused by guns and simply don't care. They use the Second Amendment as cover, claiming Liberty demands that no restrictions on guns are constitutional and one restriction will lead to another and eventually to the confiscation of all guns from citizens.

change any reference you have in your tirade from "guns" to "free speech" and the NRA to the ACLU and I would assume you would support the same restrictions?

And we KNOW the overall goal is to keep the control of weapons with the government only, its been stated by gun controllers all along.

Not at all. You're free and always will be to walk into a movie theater or first grade class and yell and scream - you might end up in a rubber room for evaluation but no one would die.

Only a true paranoid schizophrenic 'knows' the government's plan (and who in the government might that be?) is to keep control of all weapons? Sane people understand guns are everywhere in the United States, their are more guns than people (I've heard). How would the government implement such a program (give everyone a cupcake for surrendering a gun?).

It would be implemented gradually over time. The old boiling a frog slowly in water trick. its what has happened in NY State, where each law is said to be ineffective, thus requiring a new law (which of course exempts people in the government) to the point where it is a major hassle for anyone not a government employee to get a gun when they want one.

And yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre can cause a panic and kill people. We dont duct tape everyones mouth before they enter as a precaution though.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Because the 2nd amendment itself uses the word "militia." Never heard of a militia that included just 1 person.

And yet, it doesn't say, "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which shows your argument is invalid.

It says people as an obvious synonym for the word militia because militia was used earlier in the very same sentence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fail.

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not

Guns.com? Really?

That's like saying that you have a study about the inferiority of minorites from Stormfront.

The report is from the CDC, nimrod. Your point has disproven, and you have been shown to be a FUCKING LIAR.

Go crawl back into your rapist loving hole.

You know that Joe takes joy in seeing just how big of a lie he can lay out - right?

 

[Spoonman]

[quo

No relation to my right to own a firearm. I dont lose my liscense to drive when someone else gets in an accident.

More fail by JoeBlow, the new Truthmatters equivalent on this message board.

But the point is-

YOU ARE LICENSED. You can't drive unless you prove you know what you are doing.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO GET INSURANCE.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER YOUR CAR.

In short, if there was a driving equivlent to a Holmes or Loughner, we have methods to keep them out from behind a wheel.

Not so much with guns. Nope. Everyone should be able to get a gun because the founding slave rapers said so.

do you need a background check to get a car? no

do you need a license to buy a car? no

do you need insurance to buy a car? no

you only need a license and insurance to drive on government roads. I am fine with requiring a license and insurance to use my guns on government roads, just like cars.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Then overturn the amendment. Until then i have a right to an AR-15, as a law abiding non felonious citizen.

You completely failed to answer my question. How is it a hole in the book's premise?

The very fact that the rebel government and rebel individuals were actually rebelling against the established government. The consitution was not even a thought at the time, this was even before the articles of confederation. The best document you have from the period is the Declaration of Independance, and that document is against any form of tyrannical government, not just the one that was existing at the time.

Right,

the 2nd amendment was written AFTER the Revolutionary War. Therefore, it has nothing to do with rebelling against the government, contrary to your point. There is no hole in the book's premise as you falsely claim.

 

[martybegan]

Because the 2nd amendment itself uses the word "militia." Never heard of a militia that included just 1 person.

And yet, it doesn't say, "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which shows your argument is invalid.

It says people as an obvious synonym for the word militia because militia was used earlier in the very same sentence.

Um, no.

The peoples right to bear arms is not reliant on the milita, the milita is reliant on the peoples right to bear arms.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

And yet, it doesn't say, "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which shows your argument is invalid.

It says people as an obvious synonym for the word militia because militia was used earlier in the very same sentence.

Um, no.

The peoples right to bear arms is not reliant on the milita, the milita is reliant on the peoples right to bear arms.

The peoples as a group have the right to bear arms in a "well regulated militia."

 

[Spoonman]

You completely failed to answer my question. How is it a hole in the book's premise?

The very fact that the rebel government and rebel individuals were actually rebelling against the established government. The consitution was not even a thought at the time, this was even before the articles of confederation. The best document you have from the period is the Declaration of Independance, and that document is against any form of tyrannical government, not just the one that was existing at the time.

Right,

the 2nd amendment was written AFTER the Revolutionary War. Therefore, it has nothing to do with rebelling against the government, contrary to your point. There is no hole in the book's premise as you falsely claim.

it was writen to give people the ability to protect themselves against a tyranical government, like the one that had just been deposed

 

[Spoonman]

It says people as an obvious synonym for the word militia because militia was used earlier in the very same sentence.

Um, no.

The peoples right to bear arms is not reliant on the milita, the milita is reliant on the peoples right to bear arms.

The peoples as a group have the right to bear arms in a "well regulated militia."

yes, and james madison, the author of the second amendment, clearly defined the militia as a militia of the people with leaders chosen by themselves. the militia was not to be government controlled. the militia was meant ot give the people the power to oppose a government that was no longer doing the will of the people

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Listen all ..............
The tyranny of the armed registered voter MUST END.
The founding father's couldn't have foreseen the tyrannical absolute control of the government imposed by the sheeple of the future, if they had, they wouldn't have allowed it.
Eg.
Sheep herder = government
The sheep = the general public
Teeth = the sheeple's guns
The sheep are crapping those small pebble like shits everywhere, so the sheep herder attempts to move them to a camp, the sheep show their teeth, them continue consuming and crapping everywhere.

There is something wrong with this story ......... since when do the fucking sheep control the sheep herder ........... just give up the fuckin guns already .......... my god.

 

[Spoonman]

Listen all ..............
The tyranny of the armed registered voter MUST END.
The founding father's couldn't have foreseen the tyrannical absolute control of the government imposed by the sheeple of the future, if they had, they wouldn't have allowed it.
Eg.
Sheep herder = government
The sheep = the general public
Teeth = the sheeple's guns
The sheep are crapping those small pebble like shits everywhere, so the sheep herder attempts to move them to a camp, the sheep show their teeth, them continue consuming and crapping everywhere.

There is something wrong with this story ......... since when do the fucking sheep control the sheep herder ........... just give up the fuckin guns already .......... my god.

why? so the government has the onlt teeth and can control us further?

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

why? so the government has the only teeth and can control us further?

Yes ........ that is the definition of government.

 

[Spoonman]

why? so the government has the only teeth and can control us further?

Yes ........ that is the definition of government.

yes, if that government is communist

 

[Erand7899]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

There is no such thing as people as a group, with the possible exception of a mob. People exist, live, die, as individuals, not as a group.

 

[martybegan]

You completely failed to answer my question. How is it a hole in the book's premise?

The very fact that the rebel government and rebel individuals were actually rebelling against the established government. The consitution was not even a thought at the time, this was even before the articles of confederation. The best document you have from the period is the Declaration of Independance, and that document is against any form of tyrannical government, not just the one that was existing at the time.

Right,

the 2nd amendment was written AFTER the Revolutionary War. Therefore, it has nothing to do with rebelling against the government, contrary to your point. There is no hole in the book's premise as you falsely claim.

After a war that was based on rebelling against a government seen as tyranical. Why would not subsequent rebellion against a homegrown tyrannical government not be supported?

 

[martybegan]

It says people as an obvious synonym for the word militia because militia was used earlier in the very same sentence.

Um, no.

The peoples right to bear arms is not reliant on the milita, the milita is reliant on the peoples right to bear arms.

The peoples as a group have the right to bear arms in a "well regulated militia."

Thats not what is stated, even if you want it to be. The states have the right to militas, and the people have the right to arms. Commas add meaning to a sentence.

If the framers wanted arms controlled by the militas (i.e. the states) the "milita's" right to keep and bear arms would be listed as not to be infringed.

Control of arms by the milita is governmental control of arms, which is in no way the concept the framers were seeking.

You might want to live under a government that has sole control of the use of arms, most of us dont. We tend to enjoy our freedoms.

 

[kaz]

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government.

Is that right, sparky?

Thomas Jefferson:

- "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

- "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

George Washington:

- "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence"

Samuel Adams:

- "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"

James Madison:

- "to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

- "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."

Alexander Hamilton:

- "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Patrick Henry

- "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun."

Noah Webster:

- "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"

Ben Franklin

- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”