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
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.
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.
"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?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
"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.

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.
The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well.
LOL, where the hell did you come up with that hair brained logic? You want to disarm the law abiding citizens with the hope & a prayer that the non law abiding citizens won't be able to arm themselves through the black market? when did anything like that ever happen in the history of mankind? and while you're at it are you going to disarm the greatest purveyor of violence in the history of mankind (aka government) too?

How many times do you have to see government prohibitions in action before you realize they don't automagically change criminals into law abiding, peaceful people, they only make being a criminal more lucrative.

Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership.
Well that answers the question as to which "side" you're on, did you receive your "Screw the individual, I'm a statist!" coffee mug, tote bag and badge in the mail yet?

No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.
The only answer to violence is to deal with the root cause, violent individuals and the best place to start reducing that count is with the locale were most of the violent individuals reside, in government, NOT by trampling all over the individual liberty of law abiding, peaceful citizens that are only seeking to protect themselves.
LOL, where the hell did you come up with that hair brained logic?
I'd love to take credit for creative thinking here, but I don't believe I'm the sole holder of that belief. It isn't a belief, actually; it is a FACT that the majority of guns confiscated in crimes were illegally held and they had ONCE UPON A TIME been legally owned, eventually falling into the wrong hands. Guns float. Less guns floating, less criminally held. It's a fact.
And it works in Europe and every place else where guns are not a God Given Right. Nothing's perfect but we in this country have an obscene amount of gun murder and at least a huge reason for that is how many guns are lying around.
The black market would increase. Look at HISTORY and what happens when people ban something.
Gun banning would only work if it is WORLDWIDE
Emotion is a Nation killer.
 
Don't tell anyone

we are the Deep State
Balls deep.

Just no more Weiners.

Anthony_Weiner%2C_official_portrait%2C_112th_Congress.jpg

Speaking of which, he is probably up to his eye balls in wieners now.

Sick bastard is probably enjoying it.
In six months Weiner will be wearing a homemade pink mini-skirt and shooting up black tar heroin.
 
The black market would increase. Look at HISTORY and what happens when people ban something.
Gun banning would only work if it is WORLDWIDE
Emotion is a Nation killer.

Pretty much true. It's one of the more bizarre and retarded arguments the commies make, sniveling about private ownership of guns while babbling out of the other sides of their mouths all about why we should have open borders n stuff. They're just sick in the head.
 
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
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.
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.
"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?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
"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.

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.
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.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.
Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

But you have no problems with abortion clinics and some 60 million murdered babies though, right?
 
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.
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.
"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?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
"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.

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.
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.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.
Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

But you have no problems with abortion clinics and some 60 million murdered babies though, right?
The right wing has no problem with complaining about Both, the cost of an ounce of prevention and the cost of a pound of cure.
 
the second amendment speaks to what is "NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" namely a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA".

SO "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is limited to those parameters ^


SCOTUS has ruled that "the people" applies to individuals bearing arms for all LAWFUL PURPOSES.
 
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
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.
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.
"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?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
"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.

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.
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.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

And that is your right. But, you don't have the right to restrict anyone else's legal exercise of their rights because you are "uncomfortable".

Well, unless you're a totalitarian thinker.
 
The Democrats know that gun control is a losing strategy for them to win elections but they use it to trigger the dumbass Libtards to give them money.

The filthy Democrats have lost 1,000 national seats and Congress and the Presidency with stupid ideas like taking away our Constitutional rights. A great example of the insanity of the Democrat Party. They keep doing the same stupid things over and over again and expecting to get different results.

Question for you stupid Moon Bats. How did it work out for Crooked Hillary to run on a platform to demonize the NRA and advocate taking away the right to keep and bear arms in 2016?
 
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
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.
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.
"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?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
"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.

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.
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.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.
Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

But you have no problems with abortion clinics and some 60 million murdered babies though, right?
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.
The People are the Militia in the US.

Who were considered 'people' was determined by the respective state governments, not the Federal govt.
 
Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.
Yes, he is a brat and I have him on ignore, but he does have a point, IMO.
I'm not rationalizing. Rationalizing is when you make a half assed excuse for something that doesn't have a real justification. There is a body of sound facts behind my argument.

You are absolutely correct that I would hate the USMJ atmosphere and if they had been drafting women during the Vietnam war I would have washed out of boot camp for telling the drill sergeant to fuck himself on day one. The way to gain my cooperation is to ASK, even if it's actually an order. Macho shit gets a knee in the balls, in my world.
I'm grumpy this a.m. Ought to shut up myself before I ruin my sweet old lady rep.
 
Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.
Yes, he is a brat and I have him on ignore, but he does have a point, IMO.
you have me on ignore because i called political chick a hack and a lot of republicans act like fascists.
You are such an idiot
Jim admires PoliticalChic? OMG. I thought he was smarter than that.
 
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
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.
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.
"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?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
"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.

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.
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.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

And that is your right. But, you don't have the right to restrict anyone else's legal exercise of their rights because you are "uncomfortable".

Well, unless you're a totalitarian thinker.
Unless you are an anarchist opposed to all laws, you have no right to call me totalitarian for calling for restriction on gun ownership.
 
Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.
Yes, he is a brat and I have him on ignore, but he does have a point, IMO.
you have me on ignore because i called political chick a hack and a lot of republicans act like fascists.
You are such an idiot
Jim admires PoliticalChic? OMG. I thought he was smarter than that.
I guess. Poor tart monkey
 
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.
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.
"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?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
"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.

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.
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.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.
Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

But you have no problems with abortion clinics and some 60 million murdered babies though, right?
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.
The People are the Militia in the US.

Who were considered 'people' was determined by the respective state governments, not the Federal govt.
Go buddy up with Chuz and start that thread somewhere else.
 
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
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.
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.
"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?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
"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.

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.
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.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

And that is your right. But, you don't have the right to restrict anyone else's legal exercise of their rights because you are "uncomfortable".

Well, unless you're a totalitarian thinker.
Unless you are an anarchist opposed to all laws, you have no right to call me totalitarian for calling for restriction on gun ownership.
Why not? Guns are PROTECTED by our Constitution. The 2nd is there to HALT totalitarian federal govt. What else should people call you?
 
Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.
Yes, he is a brat and I have him on ignore, but he does have a point, IMO.
you have me on ignore because i called political chick a hack and a lot of republicans act like fascists.
You are such an idiot
Jim admires PoliticalChic? OMG. I thought he was smarter than that.
I guess. Poor tart monkey
Someone should tell him she doesn't really look like her avi. LOL.
 
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.
Yes, he is a brat and I have him on ignore, but he does have a point, IMO.
you have me on ignore because i called political chick a hack and a lot of republicans act like fascists.
You are such an idiot
Jim admires PoliticalChic? OMG. I thought he was smarter than that.
I guess. Poor tart monkey
Someone should tell him she doesn't really look like her avi. LOL.
She is very pretty though. At least she has that going for her.
 
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
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.
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.
"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?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?
"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.

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.
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.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

And that is your right. But, you don't have the right to restrict anyone else's legal exercise of their rights because you are "uncomfortable".

Well, unless you're a totalitarian thinker.
Unless you are an anarchist opposed to all laws, you have no right to call me totalitarian for calling for restriction on gun ownership.

Of course I do. Laws are supposed to protect the lawful exercise of our rights, not limit them because you, for example, disapprove. Totalitarians make such laws to make themselves feel better. That's what you want.
 
"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?

"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.

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.
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.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.
Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.
Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

But you have no problems with abortion clinics and some 60 million murdered babies though, right?
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.
The People are the Militia in the US.

Who were considered 'people' was determined by the respective state governments, not the Federal govt.
Go buddy up with Chuz and start that thread somewhere else.

No need to; we know you don't give a crap about human life at all, and your don't like guns because it's a fashionable meme for your peer group, is all.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top