Second Amendment rights.

[rightwinger]

Liberals often seem to want to forget there is a Second Amendment, but I support it. Not because I am a hunter or anything like that. I have heard supporters of this amendment describe it in terms of freedom from the potential of a tyrannical government. I think this makes sense.

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

Oh yes...


The Right wings "Second Amendment Remedies"

 

[Jessica Blume]

I Love the 2A.

"The beauty of the second Amendment is that you don't need it until they try to take it away from you." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[rightwinger]

I Love the 2A.

"The beauty of the second Amendment is that you don't need it until they try to take it away from you." -- Thomas Jefferson

Another bogus Thomas Jefferson quote perpetrated by the right wing

Petzold Book Blog - Hideous Jefferson Quotes, Real and Bogus

As you've undoubtedly guessed by now, that "quotation" from Thomas Jefferson is entirely bogus. Despite its appearance all over the web, it really doesn't seem to have existed prior to this century. Of course, that hasn't prevented people from quoting it and perpetuating it as if it were real. In fact, I suspect that some people even spread this quotation around knowing full well that it's bogus, because it's simply too good.

 

[Sallow]

Liberals often seem to want to forget there is a Second Amendment, but I support it. Not because I am a hunter or anything like that. I have heard supporters of this amendment describe it in terms of freedom from the potential of a tyrannical government. I think this makes sense.

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

Think about it.

If it is true that the purpose of the Constitution and the 2A was to prevent government tyranny, WHY would you allow such government to determine who may or may not carry a defensive weapon?!?!?!?!?!?

.

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

 

[Jessica Blume]

Liberals often seem to want to forget there is a Second Amendment, but I support it. Not because I am a hunter or anything like that. I have heard supporters of this amendment describe it in terms of freedom from the potential of a tyrannical government. I think this makes sense.

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

Think about it.

If it is true that the purpose of the Constitution and the 2A was to prevent government tyranny, WHY would you allow such government to determine who may or may not carry a defensive weapon?!?!?!?!?!?

.

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

The Declaration of Independence - TEXT

 

[Jessica Blume]

I Love the 2A.

"The beauty of the second Amendment is that you don't need it until they try to take it away from you." -- Thomas Jefferson

Another bogus Thomas Jefferson quote perpetrated by the right wing

Petzold Book Blog - Hideous Jefferson Quotes, Real and Bogus

As you've undoubtedly guessed by now, that "quotation" from Thomas Jefferson is entirely bogus. Despite its appearance all over the web, it really doesn't seem to have existed prior to this century. Of course, that hasn't prevented people from quoting it and perpetuating it as if it were real. In fact, I suspect that some people even spread this quotation around knowing full well that it's bogus, because it's simply too good.

Another bogus article from the clueless left. Look, it's simple: If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. That goes for any of your rights. But do not try to convince others to give up their rights because you do not want yours. People don't go buy guns simply because there is a second amendment. It's a choice. If you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns. I like having the choice. Whether I choose to buy a gun or not is my decision given to me by God. The Constitution just recognizes my rights already given to me. It's offensive to think someone wants to take any of my rights away. That is like saying someone can take away your rights. Whatever one they want. Perhaps you're right to live.

 

[Ernie S.]

I believe that the second amendment is outdated. You can have any gun you want, as long as it was available at the time the amendment was put in. That means muskets and nothing else.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand? If you want to limit the second amendment, propose an amendment that removes the above phrase.

Good luck!

 

[Jessica Blume]

I believe that the second amendment is outdated. You can have any gun you want, as long as it was available at the time the amendment was put in. That means muskets and nothing else.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand? If you want to limit the second amendment, propose an amendment that removes the above phrase.

Good luck!

The Constitution provides we can have a Navy, so by that logic, we can only have big wooden sailboats, and nothing else.

 

[rightwinger]

I Love the 2A.

"The beauty of the second Amendment is that you don't need it until they try to take it away from you." -- Thomas Jefferson

Another bogus Thomas Jefferson quote perpetrated by the right wing

Petzold Book Blog - Hideous Jefferson Quotes, Real and Bogus

As you've undoubtedly guessed by now, that "quotation" from Thomas Jefferson is entirely bogus. Despite its appearance all over the web, it really doesn't seem to have existed prior to this century. Of course, that hasn't prevented people from quoting it and perpetuating it as if it were real. In fact, I suspect that some people even spread this quotation around knowing full well that it's bogus, because it's simply too good.

Another bogus article from the clueless left. Look, it's simple: If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. That goes for any of your rights. But do not try to convince others to give up their rights because you do not want yours. People don't go buy guns simply because there is a second amendment. It's a choice. If you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns. I like having the choice. Whether I choose to buy a gun or not is my decision given to me by God. The Constitution just recognizes my rights already given to me. It's offensive to think someone wants to take any of my rights away. That is like saying someone can take away your rights. Whatever one they want. Perhaps you're right to live.

It is your quote...

Prove where and when Thomas Jefferson actually said that

 

[Sallow]

I believe that the second amendment is outdated. You can have any gun you want, as long as it was available at the time the amendment was put in. That means muskets and nothing else.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand? If you want to limit the second amendment, propose an amendment that removes the above phrase.

Good luck!

No need.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Disband the military. The citizen soldier was original intent.

Or. Lets get real about this.

 

[Sallow]

I believe that the second amendment is outdated. You can have any gun you want, as long as it was available at the time the amendment was put in. That means muskets and nothing else.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand? If you want to limit the second amendment, propose an amendment that removes the above phrase.

Good luck!

The Constitution provides we can have a Navy, so by that logic, we can only have big wooden sailboats, and nothing else.

That's basically the logic of original intent.

 

[Contumacious]

Liberals often seem to want to forget there is a Second Amendment, but I support it. Not because I am a hunter or anything like that. I have heard supporters of this amendment describe it in terms of freedom from the potential of a tyrannical government. I think this makes sense.

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

Think about it.

If it is true that the purpose of the Constitution and the 2A was to prevent government tyranny, WHY would you allow such government to determine who may or may not carry a defensive weapon?!?!?!?!?!?

.

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

I see, so I can only use a firearm to protect YOUR life, not mine. And its OK for Washington DC bureaucrats to kill you but not foreign ones.

.

 

[Sallow]

Think about it.

If it is true that the purpose of the Constitution and the 2A was to prevent government tyranny, WHY would you allow such government to determine who may or may not carry a defensive weapon?!?!?!?!?!?

.

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

Isee, so I can only use a firearm to protect YOUR life, not mine.

.

You can use a firearm to defend against foreign invasion.

Or..Domestic Insurrection.

You have read the Constitution, haven't you?

 

[Contumacious]

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

Isee, so I can only use a firearm to protect YOUR life, not mine.

.

You can use a firearm to defend against foreign invasion.

Or..Domestic Insurrection.

But not against federal tyranny.....You have read the Constitution, haven't you?

.

 

[Sallow]

Isee, so I can only use a firearm to protect YOUR life, not mine.

.

You can use a firearm to defend against foreign invasion.

Or..Domestic Insurrection.

But not against federal tyranny.....You have read the Constitution, haven't you?

.

That's correct.

You cannot take arms against the government.

 

[Contumacious]

You can use a firearm to defend against foreign invasion.

Or..Domestic Insurrection.

But not against federal tyranny.....You have read the Constitution, haven't you?

.

That's correct.

You cannot take arms against the government.

What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]


.

 

[Sallow]

But not against federal tyranny.....You have read the Constitution, haven't you?

.

That's correct.

You cannot take arms against the government.

What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]


.

Constitutionally..you cannot take arms against the government. Did you skip out of history class when they were teaching about The Whiskey Rebellion? The Civil War?

Like I posted. It's unconstitutional for a citizen to take up arms against the Federal Government.

Have you read it?

 

[Contumacious]

That's correct.

You cannot take arms against the government.

What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]


.

Constitutionally..you cannot take arms against the government. Did you skip out of history class when they were teaching about The Whiskey Rebellion? The Civil War?

Like I posted. It's unconstitutional for a citizen to take up arms against the Federal Government.

Have you read it?

If it is unconstitutional for a citizen to take up arms against his own government then that explains why the Jews preferred to be incinerated/gassed.

Thank you for the explanation. have a great day.

.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

I'm not talking about the average citizen, but rather police forces that routinely uses force when it is not necessary. The TV show cops often documents this kind of police behavior.

That's interesting because I am an avid viewer of that type of program and I rarely if ever see anything that I would construe as excessive or unnecessary force used by the LEO's on those programs (Cops, DEA, etc...).

If the police in downtown LA were seriously threatened by law abiding citizens protecting each other from criminal policing and had the weapons that you and I support to be available, then perhaps the police in LA would have second thoughts about some of their more excessive behavior.

Somehow I get the feeling that the definitions of "Law abiding citizen" and "Criminal Policing" would vary greatly depending on whether you wrote them or I wrote them. Law abiding citizens rarely have encounters with the police in LA or anywhere else. Likewise "criminal policing" is generally the cry of someone who doesn't want to face the music for getting caught doing something they're not supposed to be doing.

I think this could be true in a number of localities and I think it would be especially true if the police force learned about the types and amounts of weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens who received advanced training in these weapons and understood the law of self-defense (we're talking grandparents, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers--whole families who learn how to fire RPGs and other advanced weapons together hopefully through NRA sponsored programs meant to reach out to minority communities to help them gain the Second Amendment rights and use them appropriately.

The moment the NRA starts teaching people to shoot at cops is the moment the NRA loses my membership and the support of probably 90% of its current members. They're much smarter than that. I know a fair number of members of minorities who are NRA members already.

How can you not be for this? At least there would be a credible deterrent against police crime.

I don't believe there's a significant issues with "police crime" in this country. It does happen, but it's minimal.

I am not advocating in any way violence against police or any government entity, so I agree with that. The NRA can teach people how to defend themselves with legal firearms.

In terms of police crime, I think we have had an epidemic in this country to the extent that police crime is part of our vocabulary. Here are some examples of this:

Urban Dictionary: DWB

Testilying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a link to one of many, many youtube videos of police brutality:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RzDgk6iO-s]YouTube - ‪Racist Cop Beats Unarmed Black Male With Baton (Ep48) [+Video]‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAYoMuscAnM]YouTube - ‪Police Brutality: White Cop Chokes Black Man & Allowed His Canine To Severely Maul Him‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alC9LhrYwC0&feature=related]YouTube - ‪New Jersey Cop beats up Older Black man for standing on the corner.‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alC9LhrYwC0&feature=related]YouTube - ‪New Jersey Cop beats up Older Black man for standing on the corner.‬‏[/ame]

Here's how we're the laughing stock of the world with the police: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKKUV4]YouTube - ‪Police Overreact with a Taser Gun‬‏[/ame]

In terms of quantified evidence, here are some links to the consent decrees:

New Orleans: New Orleans Police Department slammed by Justice Department - Los Angeles Times

Newark: US v Newark

Prince George's County, MD: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/pgpd/pg_consent_decree.pdf

Virginia Beach, VA: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/pgpd/pg_consent_decree.pdf

Indianapolis, IN: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/pgpd/pg_consent_decree.pdf

Los Angeles, CA: #643: 11-02-00 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REACHES AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF LOS ANGELES

New Jersey State Police: #150: 03-29-00 INDEPENDENT MONITOR TEAM CHOSEN TO MONITOR NEW JERSEY'S EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT TERMS OF CONSENT DECREE

Now do you really think there's hardly any police crime?

 

[Anachronism]

I am not advocating in any way violence against police or any government entity, so I agree with that. The NRA can teach people how to defend themselves with legal firearms.

The NRA already does that. However, the NRA will only teach/train law abiding citizens who are willing to abide by the generally accepted laws and ways of doing things. As someone who was an NRA certified Pistol and Home Firearms Safety instructor for several years myself, I am familiar with the NRA's programs. A lot of the more "militant" factions out there won't come in for training with the NRA because we aren't going to go down the mental and intellectual roads they want, nevermind the physical ones.

In terms of police crime, I think we have had an epidemic in this country to the extent that police crime is part of our vocabulary....

.....Now do you really think there's hardly any police crime?

Yes I really do believe there's hardly any police crime. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I will suggest that in many cases what is called "police crime" is in reality qualified professionals doing the best job they can in a truly shitty situation. However, with the millions of LEOs out there on the street every single day, and the billions of interactions they have with the general public, the percentage of those that can even marginally be called "police crime" is so incredibly small as to be almost non-existant on a statistical basis.

I'll give you a good example.... I'm going to forget the gentleman's name, but some years back in Boston a man called the police claiming that an african american gentleman had shot this man's wife as they were sitting in their car on a Boston street in an attempted carjacking. He gave them a description and the police started a manhunt for the individual. Well, when it turned out that the man had actually shot his wife himself, the african american community in Boston went berserk, claiming racial profiling and all this other prejudicial garbage. My thought..... "Well, who the hell else do you think they're going to look for when that's the description the supposed victim gives to the police; and at that time most of the carjackings in Boston were being carried out by people who fit that description?" NOW, if they'd failed to do an investigation to find out the particulars of the shooting, and not determine that in fact the husband was lying, that would be one thing, and I'd be in agreement with the uproar. However, in the short term what the hell else were they supposed to do?