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.
Honestly, I believe they made the wording of the 2nd Amendment fuzzy on purpose because when the issue came up, there was as much heated, stiff necked argument about it then as we have today.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.
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.
Most likely Trump will be able to nominate a couple three more supreme court justices... that will secure the second amendment for a generation or more…Honestly, I believe they made the wording of the 2nd Amendment fuzzy on purpose because when the issue came up, there was as much heated, stiff necked argument about it then as we have today.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.
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.
Why does the 2nd amendment exist?
It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.Why does the 2nd amendment exist?
It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone
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.
Meh, they waste too much ammunition.Good luck finding a legal machine gun
20, 000 bed wetting winps got shot at a couple days ago. 1 asshole had a revolver. What a pathetic bunch. Imagine if 15,000 returned fire on that punks hotel window ! 60,000 plus rounds in 30 seconds ! It would have look like it was hit by an RPG !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.
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
I brought a shovel to a gun fight and i still wonIt should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.Why does the 2nd amendment exist?
It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
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.
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.
"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.Why does the 2nd amendment exist?
It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
LOLHelp me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
Have you ever tried carrying a concealed shovel into a restaurant?
I do not. Personal responsibility is big with Me. You wish to commit a serious crime, you should have to pay for that crime.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.
Because, fuck commies. That's why!Why does the 2nd amendment exist?
I brought a shovel to a gun fight and i still wonIt should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.Why does the 2nd amendment exist?
It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
said no one ever
Most likely Trump will be able to nominate a couple three more supreme court justices... that will secure the second amendment for a generation or more…Honestly, I believe they made the wording of the 2nd Amendment fuzzy on purpose because when the issue came up, there was as much heated, stiff necked argument about it then as we have today.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.
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.
So, you would take an underpowered handgun from a thousand yards and attack a single window 32 stories in the air?20, 000 bed wetting winps got shot at a couple days ago. 1 asshole had a revolver. What a pathetic bunch. Imagine if 15,000 returned fire on that punks hotel window ! 60,000 plus rounds in 30 seconds ! It would have look like it was hit by an RPG !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.
Point is that guns are designed for convenience, concealment and to poke holes through targets with minimum effort by a person wielding it.LOLHelp me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
Have you ever tried carrying a concealed shovel into a restaurant?
Definitely time for the knife.
The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well. Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership. I have never owned a gun and have never, even at my most vulnerable and about to get gang raped moment, did it ever occur to me to want one. I have certainly never defended myself with one or had one pointed at me. The vast majority of the time that "good guys" are confronted with irrational and aggressive individuals, having a gun does not help or it happens too fast to use it, or something."Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.Why does the 2nd amendment exist?
It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.
Every time it wasnt asked to.When has the Supreme Court not secured the 2nd amendment?
