What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The 2nd Amendment Was The Founding Fathers' 'Carry Permit' Right ('Constitutional Carry') Established For American Citizens

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
71,945
Reaction score
33,051
Points
2,330
1621965146715.png



"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."

"....shall not be infringed"
....PERIOD!



"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."




WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”






 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
1,615
Points
938
Location
Transient
View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"
....PERIOD!



"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?
Probably because of the return from the Second World War, and the conservative mind-set was to do whatever to avoid the gangsterism of the era before the war, and gun control was possible.

"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.


Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?
"Shall not be infringed."

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”
Wow. You must be proud?
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
71,945
Reaction score
33,051
Points
2,330
View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"
....PERIOD!



"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?
Probably because of the return from the Second World War, and the conservative mind-set was to do whatever to avoid the gangsterism of the era before the war, and gun control was possible.

"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.


Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?
"Shall not be infringed."

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”
Wow. You must be proud?
Of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers? You know it. Why, are you NOT, comrade?
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
1,615
Points
938
Location
Transient
View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"
....PERIOD!



"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?
Probably because of the return from the Second World War, and the conservative mind-set was to do whatever to avoid the gangsterism of the era before the war, and gun control was possible.

"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.


Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?
"Shall not be infringed."

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”
Wow. You must be proud?
Of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers? You know it. Why, are you NOT, comrade?
Because the guardians of the Second Amendment lead me to believe that the government would not be allowed to reach this detriment point, wimp. All you care about is your guns - you don't give a shit about getting people's heads on straight, bitch.
 

Osiris-ODS

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,158
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,940
Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
1,615
Points
938
Location
Transient
Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.
Try again, bitch.
We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts. Based upon an order of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court, the colony's militia was organized into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony. Today, the descendants of these first regiments - the 181st Infantry, the 182nd Infantry, the 101st Field Artillery, and the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard – share the distinction of being the oldest units in the U.S. military. December 13, 1636, thus marks the beginning of the organized militia, and the birth of the National Guard's oldest organized units is symbolic of the founding of all the state, territory, and District of Columbia militias that collectively make up today's National Guard.
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
71,945
Reaction score
33,051
Points
2,330
Because the guardians of the Second Amendment lead me to believe that the government would not be allowed to reach this detriment point, wimp. All you care about is your guns - you don't give a shit about getting people's heads on straight, bitch.

Thanks for demonstrating all you have in response to my pointing out your hatred of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution is your immature name-calling, the little tantrum you just threw, and attempting to speak for mer when you don't even know me.

I have and continue to serve my country for over 30 years now, and my top concerns are protecting this nation, Americans, our Constitution, and the Rule of Law. Socialist Democrats have made a point to piss on and stomp on these every chance they get to increase their fortune and grasp of power they used to rule over the very citizens they are supposed to be SERVANTS of, not their MASTERS.

You don't know me, and yoiu sure as hell don't speak for me, as shown by your demonstrated disgust and disdain for the Constitution and our Founding fathers in your last post.

Don't try to speak FOR me, to manufacture a false narrative by claiming I believe something i don't. Don't try to distract from your last post's disdain for this nation, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution - be a man and OWN IT. All people have to do is look back at your post minutes ago and see if for themselves.
 

Osiris-ODS

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,158
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,940
Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.
Try again, bitch.
We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts. Based upon an order of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court, the colony's militia was organized into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony. Today, the descendants of these first regiments - the 181st Infantry, the 182nd Infantry, the 101st Field Artillery, and the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard – share the distinction of being the oldest units in the U.S. military. December 13, 1636, thus marks the beginning of the organized militia, and the birth of the National Guard's oldest organized units is symbolic of the founding of all the state, territory, and District of Columbia militias that collectively make up today's National Guard.


You are truly dense. Those units did not exist in the capacity you moonbats attempt to pigeon-hole them into for purposes of interpreting the Second Amendment, as the Constitution & Bill of Rights obviously did not even exist before it was written, hence there was no federal government of united "states" in order for there to be a "national guard" . . . .

1621971106399.png
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
71,945
Reaction score
33,051
Points
2,330
Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.
Try again, bitch.
We recognize December 13th as the birthday of the National Guard. On this date in 1636, the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts. Based upon an order of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court, the colony's militia was organized into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony. Today, the descendants of these first regiments - the 181st Infantry, the 182nd Infantry, the 101st Field Artillery, and the 101st Engineer Battalion of the Massachusetts Army National Guard – share the distinction of being the oldest units in the U.S. military. December 13, 1636, thus marks the beginning of the organized militia, and the birth of the National Guard's oldest organized units is symbolic of the founding of all the state, territory, and District of Columbia militias that collectively make up today's National Guard.
Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
1,615
Points
938
Location
Transient
FUCK YOU!
WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?
So far, nobody else is even trying to answer your fucking question, numbnuts!
 

Brain357

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
36,460
Reaction score
3,919
Points
1,130
That is some imagination. Well regulated militia.
 

Brain357

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
36,460
Reaction score
3,919
Points
1,130
Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.
The 2nd is no longer needed now that we have a huge standing army.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
1,615
Points
938
Location
Transient
Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....
If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
71,945
Reaction score
33,051
Points
2,330
FUCK YOU!
WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?
So far, nobody else is even trying to answer your fucking question, numbnuts!
Because they understand the Founding Fathers made the right to bear arms an equal right to freedom of speech, the press, etc...a right that does not require government approval / permit and prohibits the government from restricting or stripping that right from them.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
33,440
Reaction score
17,291
Points
1,915
Location
Tejas
Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.
The 2nd is no longer needed now that we have a huge standing army.
Wow.

I just.


Wow. Somebody else wanna take this?
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
33,440
Reaction score
17,291
Points
1,915
Location
Tejas
Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....
If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.
Good thing we have the amendment process.
 

Osiris-ODS

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,158
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,940
Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.
The 2nd is no longer needed now that we have a huge standing army.
Wow.

I just.


Wow. Somebody else wanna take this?

Unreal. Thanks, I count on others to point out the ignored posts that are worthy of reading for a laugh.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top