Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

[KissMy]

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.

PC Repubtards hate the constitution. They fear sex & love guns. They publicize sex offenders list but refuse to publicize terror watch, criminals, crazies list so we can watch out for those with guns.

 

[Flash]

[QUO

PC Repubtards hate the constitution. They fear sex & love guns. They publicize sex offenders list but refuse to publicize terror watch, criminals, crazies list so we can watch out for those with guns.

The pathetic thing is that stupid pink pussy hat wearing Moon Bats like you actual believe that hate shit. I bet you you are one of the mindless sheeple that contributes moeny to the filthy Democrat Party when they send out their hate mail telling you those things, aren't you? Am I right or am I right?

 

[OldLady]

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?

It is my belief that the Founding Fathers kicked the can down the road not only on the issue of slavery, but also on the issue of who should own guns. That's why the 2nd is open to interpretation. It was interpretation by the Supreme Court that gave us the insane "right" you believe was bestowed upon you by God at your birth.
The Constitution also allows alteration. Like we did with slavery. I have hope that someday our insane gun rights will also be changed. I am not a totalitarian.

 

[TNHarley]

"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.

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?

It is my belief that the Founding Fathers kicked the can down the road not only on the issue of slavery, but also on the issue of who should own guns. That's why the 2nd is open to interpretation. It was interpretation by the Supreme Court that gave us the insane "right" you believe was bestowed upon you by God at your birth.
The Constitution also allows alteration. Like we did with slavery. I have hope that someday our insane gun rights will also be changed. I am not a totalitarian.

the founders intent on the second is quit clear. We have records you know..
Yes, the COTUS can be altered. Its called making an amendment. Its a lot better than having some political hacks change the meanings of words and shit on our rule of law.

 

[dannyboys]

LIBs are afraid of guns.
Guns make a loud noise. Guns will 'hurt' your skinny shoulder. Guns are heavy.
Guns are masculine.
LIB pussy man-boys are afraid of guns.
I saw a fucking LIB pussy actually pick up a rifle by the barrel once.

 

[OldLady]

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?

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.

LOL. If that misconception floats your boat, fine.
I believe in quality of life, and that includes many, many, many less guns about.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

Total bullshit!
Show me someone convicted of a first degree felony involving a firearm who can legally own one when they are released from prison.
YOU CAN"T!

I said that is what SHOULD happen not that its what happens.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

Because nowhere in the constitution does it specifically state that the people have a right to keep and bear child porn, but guns, they do. So they should be treated differently.

 

[OldLady]

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?

It is my belief that the Founding Fathers kicked the can down the road not only on the issue of slavery, but also on the issue of who should own guns. That's why the 2nd is open to interpretation. It was interpretation by the Supreme Court that gave us the insane "right" you believe was bestowed upon you by God at your birth.
The Constitution also allows alteration. Like we did with slavery. I have hope that someday our insane gun rights will also be changed. I am not a totalitarian.

the founders intent on the second is quit clear. We have records you know..
Yes, the COTUS can be altered. Its called making an amendment. Its a lot better than having some political hacks change the meanings of words and shit on our rule of law.

I know it's called making an amendment and I hope someday we will pass one. There is plenty of debate on the 2nd and just because you don't agree with the other interpretation doesn't make it political hacks shitting on our rule of law. It's a different interpretation.

 

[OldLady]

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.

PC Repubtards hate the constitution. They fear sex & love guns. They publicize sex offenders list but refuse to publicize terror watch, criminals, crazies list so we can watch out for those with guns.

We have bizarrely Victorian reactions to sex. That's just us.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

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

Right Wing Snob Rule

So do Right Wing elitists who say we live in "a republic, not a democracy" and that democracy is "mob rule."

 

[OldLady]

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.

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

Right Wing Snob Rule

So do Right Wing elitists who say we live in "a republic, not a democracy" and that democracy is "mob rule."

Our Founding Fathers also knew and distrusted the great unwashed with guns. That's why the 2nd is written fuzzy.

 

[TNHarley]

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?

It is my belief that the Founding Fathers kicked the can down the road not only on the issue of slavery, but also on the issue of who should own guns. That's why the 2nd is open to interpretation. It was interpretation by the Supreme Court that gave us the insane "right" you believe was bestowed upon you by God at your birth.
The Constitution also allows alteration. Like we did with slavery. I have hope that someday our insane gun rights will also be changed. I am not a totalitarian.

the founders intent on the second is quit clear. We have records you know..
Yes, the COTUS can be altered. Its called making an amendment. Its a lot better than having some political hacks change the meanings of words and shit on our rule of law.

I know it's called making an amendment and I hope someday we will pass one. There is plenty of debate on the 2nd and just because you don't agree with the other interpretation doesn't make it political hacks shitting on our rule of law. It's a different interpretation.

Its hacks doing their own interpretation. That isnt the way its supposed to be.
The COTUS is quit clear. The Founders intent is quit clear also.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

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

Right Wing Snob Rule

So do Right Wing elitists who say we live in "a republic, not a democracy" and that democracy is "mob rule."

Our Founding Fathers also knew and distrusted the great unwashed with guns. That's why the 2nd is written fuzzy.

Lol how is it "fuzzy?"

 

[Pop23]

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.

And where exactly would the Militia get weapons to overthrough an unjust government? From that government? Or maybe from the governmentally controlled armory that the government controlls?

 

[hunarcy]

"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.

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?

It is my belief that the Founding Fathers kicked the can down the road not only on the issue of slavery, but also on the issue of who should own guns. That's why the 2nd is open to interpretation. It was interpretation by the Supreme Court that gave us the insane "right" you believe was bestowed upon you by God at your birth.
The Constitution also allows alteration. Like we did with slavery. I have hope that someday our insane gun rights will also be changed. I am not a totalitarian.

No, it's clearly written. YOU just don't want to accept it. It is the individual right of THE PEOPLE to individually own guns, just as the individual people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. You ARE a totalitarian thinker because you believe we should only have the rights YOU approve of and that's just wrong.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Hired Blowhards

In order to dumb us down, the hereditary elite tell us the Slippery Slope is logical. Just because political celebrities use it doesn't mean we should. In fact, just the opposite. If you've heard of someone, don't listen to him.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

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

Right Wing Snob Rule

So do Right Wing elitists who say we live in "a republic, not a democracy" and that democracy is "mob rule."

Our Founding Fathers also knew and distrusted the great unwashed with guns. That's why the 2nd is written fuzzy.

Lol how is it "fuzzy?"

Because it says something she doesn't like.

 

[Rustic]

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.

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.

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…

When has the Supreme Court not secured the 2nd amendment?

The constant drumming of challenges to the 2nd will be ignored with constitutional justices

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

LOL, the mass murders in this country vis a vis other Western Democracies brings your Big Picture into focus. How long do you believe the weapons used in Vegas over the Week End would have protected the killer against one RPG fried through his window? How many members of militias - and I don't mean the NG or Naval Reserve - would survive an attack by the weapons of war in the hands of our government?

The genius of COTUS is We the People can turn over our government every two years. We have no need to arm ourselves with guns to take over our form of government when we have votes, and can bring in new people with new ideas to lead us forward.

Yeah, sometimes we make mistakes, but we can hope to change those who have proven they cannot govern and replace them in Nov. 2018.