Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

[JimBowie1958]

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

Uh no

Some automatic weapons are legal, albeit heavily regulated

Umm, yes.

woot

I really dont care how many testicles you have, Doof.

roflmao

 

[MarkDuffy]

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

Uh no

Some automatic weapons are legal, albeit heavily regulated

Umm, yes.

woot

I really dont care how many testicles you have, Doof.

roflmao

hahaha

Good luck finding a legal machine gun

 

[jasonnfree]

If they ever quit dicking around and actually hold a Constitutional Convention, the Second Amendment must be made absolute and out of reach of government. That no law abiding citizen can have their right to gun ownership removed without due process and conviction of a felony.

Why shouldn't a felon have the right to keep and bear arms? By saying this, you play into the gun grabbers' hands, putting conditions on which Americans can have guns and which can't, till they eventually ban all private gun ownership.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Exactly my point. You only get to have single shot muskets.

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

Uh no

Some automatic weapons are legal, albeit heavily regulated

Umm, yes.

woot

I really dont care how many testicles you have, Doof.

roflmao

Off topic ~ your sig

Mah Chiefs are 4-0

smirk

 

[Crackerjack]

Mr Doofy, the Constitution is a living breathing document that updates itself via case law to include automatic rifles for American citizen soldiers.

roflmao

Uh no

Some automatic weapons are legal, albeit heavily regulated

Umm, yes.

woot

I really dont care how many testicles you have, Doof.

roflmao

Off topic ~ your sig

Mah Chiefs are 4-0

smirk

*our Chiefs.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias, it has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons. Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry had rhetorically asked, shall we be stronger, "when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?"
.
.
.
.
it's so liberal to not see the big picture.

They are emotional and hand wringers....fuck facts.

Conservatives that lick guns are scared of their own shadow. And this nonsense they like to put out that 'it's about the 2nd amendment' is just empty rhetoric.

In 1776 it was possible for average citizens to have firearms comparable to any government on Earth. That ended at the beginning of the 20th Century and now every government is armed so far beyond what the citizenry has access to the point is utterly moot. But the myth cons cling to feels so good they refuse to give it up and face reality. Par for the course.

 

[Crackerjack]

Conservatives that lick guns are scared of their own shadow.

Who the hell would lick a gun? They taste terrible.

 

[Spare_change]

But the Founding Fathers never intended the second amendment to mean we could bear arms, just militias.

They just forgot to enforce this for about 200 years or so.

Where do you get that bit of nonsense?

I got that from sarcasm.

Sorry, I forgot to quote him.

Well, you have to make that waaaay more clear. Just sayin... Remember, we can't hear your inflections.

But the Founding Fathers never intended the second amendment to mean we could bear arms, just militias.

They just forgot to enforce this for abouUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUt 200 years or so.

How's that?

Better. But you still need work on your delivery.

Wearing leotards would be more effective, I think.

 

[Clementine]

The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias, it has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons. Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry had rhetorically asked, shall we be stronger, "when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?"
.
.
.
.
it's so liberal to not see the big picture.

They are emotional and hand wringers....fuck facts.

Liberals don't hate guns. They only hate it when those against socialist/communist/Marxist government have guns. Our forefathers intended for the people to always hold the power, something that is not possible with the left's vision.

It's an odd thing. The Obama administration ran guns across the border into Mexico, gave them to rebel groups in Syria, and God only knows who else, but does not want American citizens to have access to them.

Very odd. It's almost as if Obama and company distrust the American people above all others.

Of course, they distrust us. They know that the majority of people won't go for their fundamental transformation of America and they would rather we are unarmed and helpless. So much easier to control us that way. Every dictator in history disarmed the people before introducing their radical new government.

That is why libs never complain about the more common ways that people kill, like knives. Only guns are a threat to a corrupt government.

The second amendment ensures our freedom and liberty, two things that cannot exist in the liberal utopia. It's amazing how many believe we live in a democracy. Of course, Hillary and her cronies are demanding as much since she lost the election. Our forefathers chose to be a republic and we have the electoral system for a reason, mainly to prevent the country from imploding. Yet, the left, who never learn from history, support the bull that Hillary and the left puts out there.

The ability to arm ourselves against all dangers, whether it's a home invasion or a corrupt government attempting to shred the constitution, is something we need if we are to sustain this nation and keep our freedom and liberty.



"Firstly, if I may shock you; we are not a democracy. The founding fathers studied all forms of government through history (until 1787) and decided to make us a Constitutional Republic. Why? They realized that most democracies eventually descend into mob rule and the majority is easily manipulated by those giving them the most gifts. As Benjamin Franklin said; “Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

John Adams said this, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” While we have some democratic elements in our governmental processes, we were founded as a Republic with elected representation, the strongest of which was supposed to be the one closest to the people."




Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch

 

[xotoxi]

"Why does the 2nd amendment exist?"

The Founding Fathers wanted to create a never ending forum debate topic.

Imagine if the 2nd Amendment protected the individuals have the right to bear sponges and scrubby brushes? Boring topic.

 

[Markle]

But the Founding Fathers never intended the second amendment to mean we could bear arms, just militias.

They just forgot to enforce this for about 200 years or so.

You skipped English grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?

Yes, I hate it when that happens. It can lead to misunderstandings.

Your example has to do with enunciation. My example has to do with punctuation. Something of which you are not aware.

 

[Flash]

Actually it gives the reason in the amendment "being necessary for the security of a free state"

Very true

We needed well regulated militias to defend our free state
Individual civilians aren't worth shit

Well regulated meant well provisioned and the militia is all the people you fucking moron. Justice Scalia explained all that in the Heller case. Only you stupid Moon Bats are in denial that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Stupidity like that is one of the reasons we ridicule you dumbasses so much.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias, it has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons. Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry had rhetorically asked, shall we be stronger, "when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?"
.
.
.
.
it's so liberal to not see the big picture.

They are emotional and hand wringers....fuck facts.

I was going to say; Two protect us from the government

but you made that clear.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And because nowhere in the constitution does it say that conviction of a felony means you lose you right to bear arms, the day you are released from prison you are given your guns back, preferably cleaned and well oiled and ready for use.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that child pornography is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment either.

Perhaps you fail to understand the purpose of the Constitution. It isn't a laundry list of do's and don'ts for the people. It is an enumeration of permissions for the government, a definition of the government, if you will. Further, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" Thus, banning child pornography is, and should be, controlled by the States. This means, simply, that the federal government cannot expand its control without permission of the states, or the people. Of course, we have violated this hundreds of time, all in the name of "the general welfare".

We have committed numerous sins in the name of "the general welfare" clause. James Madison, one of the collaborators who developed the Constitution would tell you that if it ain't in the Constitution, you can do whatever you wish. Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, believes that the "general welfare" clause allows the government to do whatever they wish - as long as they cloak it in promoting the general welfare.

Such is the Constitutional argument that continues until today.

You missed the point. Carry on.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually it gives the reason in the amendment "being necessary for the security of a free state"

Very true

We needed well regulated militias to defend our free state
Individual civilians aren't worth shit

Well regulated meant well provisioned and the militia is all the people you fucking moron. Justice Scalia explained all that in the Heller case. Only you stupid Moon Bats are in denial that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Stupidity like that is one of the reasons we ridicule you dumbasses so much.

No. Well regulated does not mean provisioned

Our founders knew what a militia was and without a standing army depended on them for our nations defense

Their militia was not a bunch of random people carrying guns. It was organized, trained, had a command structure

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why does the 2nd amendment exist?
[/QUOTE]

It was put in there just to dick off the Left.
[/QUOTE]

It's telling that that is the best reason this guy can come up with.

 

[Picaro]

It was written to allow the states to set up their own defense arrangements and save themselves from having to pay Federal taxes to support an Army, which in turn could be used by partisan politicians for their own personal agendas. Of course, this very soon proved to be untenable and a Federal force was organized anyway, as in 1792. This can probably be found at archive.org., but I've never looked for it personally.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/militia/StatAtLargeTitle1.gif

And, states, as did nearly all of the previous colonial authorities, did indeed pass gun control laws of their own, many of them which would be very unpopular with the 2nd A fanatics here if they existed today, so selectively citing 'Da Founders' is as much an exercise in dishonesty and failure as the left wing gibberish is. Rather than read selectively biased appeals to authority and history, just read from the primary sources themselves, here; this site covers militia statutes, gun control laws, race based gun control laws, and every other conceivable issue from the early days of our country, from colonial times onward.

Primary Historical Sources

It's the most extensive collection in one place I know of; if anybody has one better please post it, as I would like a link to one better if it exists.

A lot of the statutes were historically aimed at blacks, so most gun control laws have racist roots, so any genuine 'anti-racist' should be opposed to them, right?

 

[iceberg]

Conservatives that lick guns are scared of their own shadow.

Who the hell would lick a gun? They taste terrible.

now how would you know this w/o licking it yourself?

 

[Picaro]

Actually it gives the reason in the amendment "being necessary for the security of a free state"

Very true

We needed well regulated militias to defend our free state
Individual civilians aren't worth shit

Well regulated meant well provisioned and the militia is all the people you fucking moron. Justice Scalia explained all that in the Heller case. Only you stupid Moon Bats are in denial that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Stupidity like that is one of the reasons we ridicule you dumbasses so much.

No. Well regulated does not mean provisioned

Our founders knew what a militia was and without a standing army depended on them for our nations defense

Their militia was not a bunch of random people carrying guns. It was organized, trained, had a command structure

Depends on the individual state; some states considered everybody to be in the 'militia', particularly low population states.

 

[Picaro]

I will add that most of the country isn't Manhattan island or San Francisco, where there are cops on every block, and disarming people in most states isn't practical or even possible. Police response times in most of the country is measured in as much as 30 minutes even in some urban areas.