Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Levant]

Im not into the whole Militia thing, plus we aren’t traveling in covered wagons anymore and have done a pretty good job establishing police forces to protect our communities. So I would treat guns the same way we treat cars. Age requirement, course work, testing, license and then you’re good to go. I wouldn’t sell to mentally unstable people and I would not sell weapons capable of mass carnage in short amounts of time. So I’m fine with bans on autos and high capacity mags Etc.

You are the very exact enemy of republicanism and the Constitution that the Founding Fathers warned us about. You approach us with deceit and pretend that you are our friend and fellow gun owner but you are not a friend; you are the enemy of liberty. That we're in a different time and different politics is exactly the warning the Founders tried to provide. (Hat tip to Quotes From The Founding Fathers On Our Right To Bear Arms for compiling these quotes):

Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

James Madison, of Virginia:
The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Alexander Hamilton, of New York:
“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — The Federalist, No. 29

Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:
“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 29:

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

 

[Slade3200]

Im not into the whole Militia thing, plus we aren’t traveling in covered wagons anymore and have done a pretty good job establishing police forces to protect our communities. So I would treat guns the same way we treat cars. Age requirement, course work, testing, license and then you’re good to go. I wouldn’t sell to mentally unstable people and I would not sell weapons capable of mass carnage in short amounts of time. So I’m fine with bans on autos and high capacity mags Etc.

You are the very exact enemy of republicanism and the Constitution that the Founding Fathers warned us about. You approach us with deceit and pretend that you are our friend and fellow gun owner but you are not a friend; you are the enemy of liberty. That we're in a different time and different politics is exactly the warning the Founders tried to provide. (Hat tip to Quotes From The Founding Fathers On Our Right To Bear Arms for compiling these quotes):

Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

James Madison, of Virginia:
The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Alexander Hamilton, of New York:
“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — The Federalist, No. 29

Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:
“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 29:

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

The founders were geniuses of their time and did great things in creating a government fitting for the time in which they were living. You sound rather silly falling back to statements made over 200 years ago when engaging in a modern discussion though. I respect that you are passionate about your guns, that’s fine. I think mine are cool but I’m also flexible

 

[Levant]

The founders were geniuses of their time and did great things in creating a government fitting for the time in which they were living. You sound rather silly falling back to statements made over 200 years ago when engaging in a modern discussion though. I respect that you are passionate about your guns, that’s fine. I think mine are cool but I’m also flexible

The Founders were geniuses of their time and did things in their time that are fitting for our time. At least you admit that you're an anti-constitutionalist and are looking to undo the republic and the Constitution that they created 231 years ago. But it is you that sounds silly, suggesting that we do not, should not, learn from history, and that the great ideas of 200 years, 300 years, 2000 years, 2500 years ago are to be ignored and forgotten, not to be quoted as applicable in our time. Modern philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians would disagree with you, of course.

Democrats, on the other hand, would agree with you completely if asked. Their historical political influences start at 1848.

 

[Slade3200]

The founders were geniuses of their time and did great things in creating a government fitting for the time in which they were living. You sound rather silly falling back to statements made over 200 years ago when engaging in a modern discussion though. I respect that you are passionate about your guns, that’s fine. I think mine are cool but I’m also flexible

The Founders were geniuses of their time and did things in their time that are fitting for our time. At least you admit that you're an anti-constitutionalist and are looking to undo the republic and the Constitution that they created 231 years ago. But it is you that sounds silly, suggesting that we do not, should not, learn from history, and that the great ideas of 200 years, 300 years, 2000 years, 2500 years ago are to be ignored and forgotten, not to be quoted as applicable in our time. Modern philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians would disagree with you, of course.

Democrats, on the other hand, would agree with you completely if asked. Their historical political influences start at 1848.

On the contrary I respect the constitution very much. I’m not suggesting we do anything outside of what the constitution allows. For example that 3/5ths nonsense that was originally in there. You wouldn’t suggest that those that fought to remove that were anti-constitutionalists, would you? Granted we have different interpretations of what the second amendment says... if you really trusted the constitution you would trust the process set up to handle different interpretations... The SCOTUS

 

[Levant]

The founders were geniuses of their time and did great things in creating a government fitting for the time in which they were living. You sound rather silly falling back to statements made over 200 years ago when engaging in a modern discussion though. I respect that you are passionate about your guns, that’s fine. I think mine are cool but I’m also flexible

The Founders were geniuses of their time and did things in their time that are fitting for our time. At least you admit that you're an anti-constitutionalist and are looking to undo the republic and the Constitution that they created 231 years ago. But it is you that sounds silly, suggesting that we do not, should not, learn from history, and that the great ideas of 200 years, 300 years, 2000 years, 2500 years ago are to be ignored and forgotten, not to be quoted as applicable in our time. Modern philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians would disagree with you, of course.

Democrats, on the other hand, would agree with you completely if asked. Their historical political influences start at 1848.

On the contrary I respect the constitution very much. I’m not suggesting we do anything outside of what the constitution allows. For example that 3/5ths nonsense that was originally in there. You wouldn’t suggest that those that fought to remove that were anti-constitutionalists, would you? Granted we have different interpretations of what the second amendment says... if you really trusted the constitution you would trust the process set up to handle different interpretations... The SCOTUS

That's absolutely absurd. Trusting the Constitution is not a thing. The Constitution is a thing. It says what it says. It means what it means. It's written in about 6th-grade English and is quite easily understood. If it allowed for different interpretations then it would mean nothing because it means whatever a person wants it to mean.

The Second Amendment is very, very, clear. I've quoted many of the Founders on original understanding and intent. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, those who fought to remove the 3/5ths thing were not anti-constitutionalists; they used the amendment process in the Constitution to change the Constitution rather than ignore it or water it down to nothing by allowing it to mean whatever they wanted it to mean. You, on the other hand, stated that the Constitution was a thing that made sense 200 years ago and that quoting or depending on the writings of great minds 200 years ago was silly. There's a huge difference between using the Constitution to change the Constitution as intended by the Founders versus dismissing all of their work as silly in today's world.

I stand by my statement: you're an enemy of the Constitution. There have been many, many, like you who come onto political, especially gun-related, forums and start out with how much they love the Constitution and how much they support the 2nd Amendment, and they get high-and-mighty about things like "civil discussion" while they pretend to just take a reasonable approach to stripping us of our rights and liberty. You claim to be conservative, a constitutionalist, and pro-gun, but that's all a scam. They're cover as you pretend to be our friend so you can convince us not just to surrender our rights but to accept that the government can take them at will, ignoring the Constitution.

 

[Slade3200]

The founders were geniuses of their time and did great things in creating a government fitting for the time in which they were living. You sound rather silly falling back to statements made over 200 years ago when engaging in a modern discussion though. I respect that you are passionate about your guns, that’s fine. I think mine are cool but I’m also flexible

The Founders were geniuses of their time and did things in their time that are fitting for our time. At least you admit that you're an anti-constitutionalist and are looking to undo the republic and the Constitution that they created 231 years ago. But it is you that sounds silly, suggesting that we do not, should not, learn from history, and that the great ideas of 200 years, 300 years, 2000 years, 2500 years ago are to be ignored and forgotten, not to be quoted as applicable in our time. Modern philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians would disagree with you, of course.

Democrats, on the other hand, would agree with you completely if asked. Their historical political influences start at 1848.

On the contrary I respect the constitution very much. I’m not suggesting we do anything outside of what the constitution allows. For example that 3/5ths nonsense that was originally in there. You wouldn’t suggest that those that fought to remove that were anti-constitutionalists, would you? Granted we have different interpretations of what the second amendment says... if you really trusted the constitution you would trust the process set up to handle different interpretations... The SCOTUS

That's absolutely absurd. Trusting the Constitution is not a thing. The Constitution is a thing. It says what it says. It means what it means. It's written in about 6th-grade English and is quite easily understood. If it allowed for different interpretations then it would mean nothing because it means whatever a person wants it to mean.

The Second Amendment is very, very, clear. I've quoted many of the Founders on original understanding and intent. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, those who fought to remove the 3/5ths thing were not anti-constitutionalists; they used the amendment process in the Constitution to change the Constitution rather than ignore it or water it down to nothing by allowing it to mean whatever they wanted it to mean. You, on the other hand, stated that the Constitution was a thing that made sense 200 years ago and that quoting or depending on the writings of great minds 200 years ago was silly. There's a huge difference between using the Constitution to change the Constitution as intended by the Founders versus dismissing all of their work as silly in today's world.

I stand by my statement: you're an enemy of the Constitution. There have been many, many, like you who come onto political, especially gun-related, forums and start out with how much they love the Constitution and how much they support the 2nd Amendment, and they get high-and-mighty about things like "civil discussion" while they pretend to just take a reasonable approach to stripping us of our rights and liberty. You claim to be conservative, a constitutionalist, and pro-gun, but that's all a scam. They're cover as you pretend to be our friend so you can convince us not just to surrender our rights but to accept that the government can take them at will, ignoring the Constitution.

I never claimed any of that. I’m moderate and a gun owner... not a conservative pro gunner... don’t be distorting things I’ve said.

I believe responsible Americans have the right to responsible firearms. I also think that regulating that system is fine. I think an amendment process would be the right process to take if any major changes are to be made on the federal level.

 

[Levant]

I never claimed any of that. I’m moderate and a gun owner... not a conservative pro gunner... don’t be distorting things I’ve said.

I believe responsible Americans have the right to responsible firearms. I also think that regulating that system is fine. I think an amendment process would be the right process to take if any major changes are to be made on the federal level.

Well, compared to Antifa, yes, you're a moderate.

You treat gun ownership as a privilege, allowable for approved sporting functions and, in very few situations, limited self-defense.

You don't understand at all that there's a difference, a separation, between the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is an extension to the rights, among others, to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If another can take my life and I cannot defend myself, my right to life was infringed. If I cannot own my property without it being taken by force then how am I free? If I live in fear of crime and of anyone who wants my life or property or family from coming into my home and taking them, how can I be happy?

If a group of people can appoint themselves my master, forcing me to live my life according to their wishes, taking what is mine and giving it to others, and calling themselves government over me even though nothing in the Constitution of The United States of America or of the state of Oklahoma gives them that power - they're taking power not theirs and using their force to subjugate me - if I cannot defend myself, how can I defend my life, my liberty, and pursue happiness?

The right to self-defense, against any and all attackers, is an inalienable right - a natural right or a God-given right, choose your own source of fundamental human rights. Those rights extend to every human being. Isn't it funny that leftists think medical care extends to every human being in the United States but the right to defense against those who would put you in the hospital (morgue) does not.

 

[Doc7505]

Democrats say they want to ban “weapons of war” but what they really want is to disarm citizens.

​

HR 1808 will ban practically all new semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.
Another failed Marxist-Maoist attempt to disarm America

 

[daveman]