CDZ Guns Tanks and Nucklear Weapons. The second amendment.

[Skull Pilot]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

OK so if you think the Bill of rights only applies to 18th century technology then get rid of your computer write your message on parchment paper with a quill pen and have a guy on horseback deliver it to us

 

[Fair&Balanced]

the NRA blocks any scientific studys because they would prove that the nr 1 danger to the safety of citizens in the USA is the NRA. the NRA is the Nr 1 terrorist organization in the USA

How would the NRA block anything from being published? Jesus Christ.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

you guys are a dime a dozen

in 1779 Girandoni invented a breech loading rifle that was capable of firing 40 shots in a minute or so

no where in the Constitution do i find them penning

the right to keep and bear arms except for the Girandoni assault rifle or others like it

 

[williepete]

you have to join a "well regulated" militia to bear arms.
join the national guard
otherwise your just a criminal with guns

hauke,

As a German, you must realize what an historical ring your statement has:

Heinrich Himmler Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

 

[Steven_R]

question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.

The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.

for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.

We The People are the militia. The expectation was that every citizen could show up with arms as needed.

 

[GaryDog]

question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.

The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.

for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.

We The People are the militia. The expectation was that every citizen could show up with arms as needed.

So one of you finally admits it: You want terrorists and criminals to have guns.

 

[Steven_R]

question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.

The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.

for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.

We The People are the militia. The expectation was that every citizen could show up with arms as needed.

So one of you finally admits it: You want terrorists and criminals to have guns.

No genius. Even under English Common Law convicted felons were exempt from carrying weapons. They aren't considered free citizens.

 

[GaryDog]

question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

Of course they could image those kinds of weapons could exist. Not only had people been trying to increase ammunition capacity and firing rates since the first firearms were created, some of them had already been in existence long before the Constitution, like the Puckle Gun, a kind of a flintlock Gatling Gun dating back to 1718.

The Continental Congress even went so far as to look into buying the Belton Flintlock, an early machine gun-type weapon that would have fed ammunition in via a belt. They abandoned the project because it was too expensive.

for militias. not for someone sitting at his fire in his home.

We The People are the militia. The expectation was that every citizen could show up with arms as needed.

So one of you finally admits it: You want terrorists and criminals to have guns.

No genius. Even under English Common Law convicted felons were exempt from carrying weapons. They aren't considered free citizens.

All I saw was "all citizens". No qualifier. Why not go with your gut instinct?

 

[Steven_R]

Convicted felons aren't free citizens and have limited rights. It isn't really that hard of a concept.

Until "terrorists" are convicted in a court of law (that pesky Due Process thing the Constitution guarantees), there is no reason they should have their rights abrogated. It is far too easy to end up on a secret list with no recourse these days. Convict them or kill them if they are threats, otherwise they still get their rights like free men.

 

[GaryDog]

Convicted felons aren't free citizens and have limited rights. It isn't really that hard of a concept.

Until "terrorists" are convicted in a court of law (that pesky Due Process thing the Constitution guarantees), there is no reason they should have their rights abrogated. It is far too easy to end up on a secret list with no recourse these days. Convict them or kill them if they are threats, otherwise they still get their rights like free men.

Convicted felons absolutely are free citizens. In many states, they can vote. You're just wrong.

 

[Steven_R]

"We trust you to vote, but not to carry guns because you're a threat" does not a free citizen make.

 

[GaryDog]

"We trust you to vote, but not to carry guns because you're a threat" does not a free citizen make.

No one even knows what that means. No one's free unless they have a gun? How about a tennis racquet?

 

[320 Years of History]

"We trust you to vote, but not to carry guns because you're a threat" does not a free citizen make.

Good lord! Just how many ways can folks find to put the "e" in "ignernt?" I must ask because almost daily I happen upon more and more evidence that much that is written in the forum, lo the Internet as a whole, is offered to do that more so than anything else, to say nothing of that being what it's most effective at achieving, even when it's not intended.

We trust folks to vote and simultaneously don't trust them to do all sorts of things. Two basic examples:

• Some folks are okay to vote, but not to drive.
• Some folks are okay to vote as they see fit, but not to talk, and/or talk about specific topics, as they see fit.

One's freedom or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether one does or may carry a gun. Were a gun the provider and guarantor of freedom, one could immigrate to any nation, carry a gun and thus be a free citizen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"We trust you to vote, but not to carry guns because you're a threat" does not a free citizen make.

No one even knows what that means. No one's free unless they have a gun? How about a tennis racquet?

You are less free if the government can tell you you cannot own a weapon to defend yourself

 

[Wilbur Right]

You are less free if the government can tell you you cannot own a weapon to defend yourself

Really? So a gun is the ONLY weapon you can defend yourself with? Or did you use the term "weapon" as your; I didn't say THAT?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are less free if the government can tell you you cannot own a weapon to defend yourself

Really? So a gun is the ONLY weapon you can defend yourself with? Or did you use the term "weapon" as your; I didn't say THAT?

It certainly is the best weapon

And in a thread about guns I didn't think it was presuming too much for anyone with any intelligence at all to realize I was talking about guns and I was right

 

[Divine Wind]

Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Agreed, not to mention the most important point; the fact the Founders suppported the fundamental right of self-defense.

LWers believe the Constitutional grants us rights. What they don't understand is that we already have all of our rights and the Constitution limits government. Anyone who reads and understands the controversy of surrounding even writing the Bill of Rights has an understanding of our unalienable rights.

 

[GaryDog]

Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Agreed, not to mention the most important point; the fact the Founders suppported the fundamental right of self-defense.

LWers believe the Constitutional grants us rights. What they don't understand is that we already have all of our rights and the Constitution limits government. Anyone who reads and understands the controversy of surrounding even writing the Bill of Rights has an understanding of our unalienable rights.

SCOTUS never recognized this right until 2008. And please link up where the founders felt personal, home defense should be implicit in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Ringel05]

Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Agreed, not to mention the most important point; the fact the Founders suppported the fundamental right of self-defense.

LWers believe the Constitutional grants us rights. What they don't understand is that we already have all of our rights and the Constitution limits government. Anyone who reads and understands the controversy of surrounding even writing the Bill of Rights has an understanding of our unalienable rights.

SCOTUS never recognized this right until 2008. And please link up where the founders felt personal, home defense should be implicit in the 2nd Amendment.

Read the Federalist Papers.

 

[Divine Wind]

SCOTUS never recognized this right until 2008. And please link up where the founders felt personal, home defense should be implicit in the 2nd Amendment.

An unalienable right doesn't need SCOTUS to back it up. Do you really need a ruling by SCOTUS to have a child? Eat? Defend yourself?

The only reason SCOTUS ruled on this was because Nanny Staters were attempting to disarm citizens "for their own good".