The NRA.

[Rustic]

NRA is our if control .

Better to become a member of your local state gun rights group .

Quit falling down the well
This is a better organization

Home

 

[2aguy]

I hope this helps...

Your first paragraph explained it perfectly. So to recap, the right to defend one's life is a human right that exists sans any legislation and the purpose of the 2nd is to acknowledge this pre-existing right and to prohibit the government (or Congress) from infringing upon the right of "the people' to keep & bear arms?

Exactly.

 

[kiwiman127]

If indeed this is true, it is not unexpected and so very sad. We have few statesmen, few people willing to cross the aisle and work with the other side, and fewer still who regard their political jobs as a service. I did not always agree with him, but I respected him, a lot. I am sure many will villify him, but to start an OP on his death with a remark about Trump is a disgusting politicization of a sad event.

It's true. He's

trump is silent a real pos

Trump has been silent all week. He even refused to mention him for the defense bill named in his honor.

Trump isn't worthy to wipe McCains shoes.

The Republican party now truly is the party of spineless clowns led by the number one spineless clown.

McCain was the only living member of the party that still lent it any credibility at all.

Today marks two distinctive, and very sad events.

Donald Trump is still living, and John McCain isn't.

You trolls make everything about Trump. True insanity. smh.

No one has to make anything up dealing with Trump. Trump is a living reality show. Everything he says is in print or on tape. It's right there, for all to see/hear. It's pretty hard to make up anything about Trump.

Nice try troll, but notice I said "make everything about Trump" not what your lie said, "make anything up dealing with Trump". Pathetic liar.

Actually, a few weeks ago, I posted the below link.
Analysis | President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days
This is a list of Trump's lies and misleading statements. Every lie/misstatement is verified and have never been debunked by Trump, his staff or his supporters.
I challenged you to debunk anything in the list. You ran away.
So, it is not I who is the liar, it is the pathological liar Donald Trump and you are the goose-stepping small-minded denier.

 

[2aguy]

If indeed this is true, it is not unexpected and so very sad. We have few statesmen, few people willing to cross the aisle and work with the other side, and fewer still who regard their political jobs as a service. I did not always agree with him, but I respected him, a lot. I am sure many will villify him, but to start an OP on his death with a remark about Trump is a disgusting politicization of a sad event.

It's true. He's

trump is silent a real pos

Trump has been silent all week. He even refused to mention him for the defense bill named in his honor.

Trump isn't worthy to wipe McCains shoes.

The Republican party now truly is the party of spineless clowns led by the number one spineless clown.

McCain was the only living member of the party that still lent it any credibility at all.

Today marks two distinctive, and very sad events.

Donald Trump is still living, and John McCain isn't.

You trolls make everything about Trump. True insanity. smh.

No one has to make anything up dealing with Trump. Trump is a living reality show. Everything he says is in print or on tape. It's right there, for all to see/hear. It's pretty hard to make up anything about Trump.

Nice try troll, but notice I said "make everything about Trump" not what your lie said, "make anything up dealing with Trump". Pathetic liar.

Actually, a few weeks ago, I posted the below link.
Analysis | President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days
This is a list of Trump's lies and misleading statements. Every lie/misstatement is verified and have never been debunked by Trump, his staff or his supporters.
I challenged you to debunk anything in the list. You ran away.
So, it is not I who is the liar, it is the pathological liar Donald Trump and you are the goose-stepping small-minded denier.

And this post has what to do with the NRA? Please.....post this in the other dozen threads about Trump and post about the NRA.....

 

[miketx]

If indeed this is true, it is not unexpected and so very sad. We have few statesmen, few people willing to cross the aisle and work with the other side, and fewer still who regard their political jobs as a service. I did not always agree with him, but I respected him, a lot. I am sure many will villify him, but to start an OP on his death with a remark about Trump is a disgusting politicization of a sad event.

It's true. He's

trump is silent a real pos

Trump has been silent all week. He even refused to mention him for the defense bill named in his honor.

Trump isn't worthy to wipe McCains shoes.

The Republican party now truly is the party of spineless clowns led by the number one spineless clown.

McCain was the only living member of the party that still lent it any credibility at all.

Today marks two distinctive, and very sad events.

Donald Trump is still living, and John McCain isn't.

You trolls make everything about Trump. True insanity. smh.

No one has to make anything up dealing with Trump. Trump is a living reality show. Everything he says is in print or on tape. It's right there, for all to see/hear. It's pretty hard to make up anything about Trump.

Nice try troll, but notice I said "make everything about Trump" not what your lie said, "make anything up dealing with Trump". Pathetic liar.

Actually, a few weeks ago, I posted the below link.
Analysis | President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days
This is a list of Trump's lies and misleading statements. Every lie/misstatement is verified and have never been debunked by Trump, his staff or his supporters.
I challenged you to debunk anything in the list. You ran away.
So, it is not I who is the liar, it is the pathological liar Donald Trump and you are the goose-stepping small-minded denier.

No liar I did not run away, I declined not to play your ridiculous game. No matter what is posted you will still flame troll and deny and lie. Lie just like you did here! And now, you try and misdirect what you said.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

Are you a member of Gun owners of America or the 2nd Amedment Foundation....? How about local gun rights groups? I belong to as many as I can, they all play their part.

GOA and JPFO. I will not give a cent to the NRA unless and until they throw Oliver North out on his ear.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Which is all very nice and good, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone did as they should. But we don't.

The Supreme Court majority is attempting to make "bear arms" become "carry arms".

Why do you think bear arms doesn't mean to carry arms? To me the plain language of the amendment seems rather clear.

 

[2aguy]

Which is all very nice and good, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone did as they should. But we don't.

The Supreme Court majority is attempting to make "bear arms" become "carry arms".

Why do you think bear arms doesn't mean to carry arms? To me the plain language of the amendment seems rather clear.

Because he doesn't want normal, law abiding people to be able to carry guns in public. That is the only reason. So, he has to stretch and contort into various pretzel shaped yoga postures to change the meaning of "Bear" so that it doesn't include you carrying a gun to protect yourself.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

 

[Taz]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

It gives them power to tell politicians not to infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms.

So their only purpose is to scare you with nonsense to get your money? Good fucking plan!

 

[Taz]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

 

[Taz]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

 

[2aguy]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

It gives them power to tell politicians not to infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms.

So their only purpose is to scare you with nonsense to get your money? Good fucking plan!

No... they fight to keep the 2nd Amendment safe, they teach gun safety to millions of people each year, they teach law enforcement how to use their guns......

 

[2aguy]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

And yet they aren't the biggest group paying politicians by a long shot... that would go to the left wing unions.... trade unions, teachers unions and lawyers..... and they all support gun control, taking away the Right to self defense from American citizens.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

What do you get out of it? The right to pay them money. Anything else?

Someone who will fight for my second amendment rights.

So they scare you with bs to get your money, where do I sign up?

So you're saying you have no reason to fear the NRA?

I don't fear the NRA. I don't like them buying off pols, but not afraid of them, per se.

Than why are you constantly bitching about em?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which is all very nice and good, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone did as they should. But we don't.

The Supreme Court majority is attempting to make "bear arms" become "carry arms".

Why do you think bear arms doesn't mean to carry arms? To me the plain language of the amendment seems rather clear.

Firstly, logic.

Logic suggests that if you have an amendment that begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of penguins to play chess shall not be infringed."

It makes no sense, right? Clearly, what the hell do penguins have to do with the militia.

Well, the same thing with "the right of the people to carry guns around with them" also doesn't do anything for the militia.

To protect the militia from the Federal government, they protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms. But guns don't kill people, people do.
So they also protected the right to be in the militia. So the militia would have ARMS and PERSONNEL to use those arms.

That's logical. To protect self defense or carrying of arms in an amendment about the militia makes no sense.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Also this document.

It's from the House debates of the future Second Amendment. They discussed this clause that was eventually not a part of the 2A.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then they changed it to:

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Do you see what they meant by "bear arms"? They meant "render military service in person"

Mr Gerry said:

Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

Are you telling me that guys not being able to carry guns around with them would destroy the constitution? Or would it be more that the militia without personnel could destroy the country because the ultimate check and balance on the federal government would be destroyed?

Mr Gerry also said: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

So, he's saying this because he wants to protect the militia, in an amendment that starts with "A well regulated militia", or he's talking about guys carrying guns around???

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

So, Mr Gerry uses "bear arms" synonymously with "militia duty".

And nothing about carrying arms in the whole text.

 

[2aguy]

Which is all very nice and good, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone did as they should. But we don't.

The Supreme Court majority is attempting to make "bear arms" become "carry arms".

Why do you think bear arms doesn't mean to carry arms? To me the plain language of the amendment seems rather clear.

Firstly, logic.

Logic suggests that if you have an amendment that begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of penguins to play chess shall not be infringed."

It makes no sense, right? Clearly, what the hell do penguins have to do with the militia.

Well, the same thing with "the right of the people to carry guns around with them" also doesn't do anything for the militia.

To protect the militia from the Federal government, they protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms. But guns don't kill people, people do.
So they also protected the right to be in the militia. So the militia would have ARMS and PERSONNEL to use those arms.

That's logical. To protect self defense or carrying of arms in an amendment about the militia makes no sense.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Also this document.

It's from the House debates of the future Second Amendment. They discussed this clause that was eventually not a part of the 2A.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then they changed it to:

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Do you see what they meant by "bear arms"? They meant "render military service in person"

Mr Gerry said:

Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

Are you telling me that guys not being able to carry guns around with them would destroy the constitution? Or would it be more that the militia without personnel could destroy the country because the ultimate check and balance on the federal government would be destroyed?

Mr Gerry also said: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

So, he's saying this because he wants to protect the militia, in an amendment that starts with "A well regulated militia", or he's talking about guys carrying guns around???

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

So, Mr Gerry uses "bear arms" synonymously with "militia duty".

And nothing about carrying arms in the whole text.

Yes.... all addressed in Heller, which you need to ignore because it specifically goes through the legal and historical precedents that show Bearing Arms was an individual Right not attached to militia duty.... they also break down piece by piece the 2nd Amednment and show you don't know what you are talking about...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
------------------------

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.
-----

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
-----

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

--

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

And nothing about carrying arms in the whole text.

But the Supreme Court, right or wrong has handed down it's ruling. When SCOTUS ruled that black people were not citizens and therefore had no rights under the U.S. Constitution (Dred Scott v Sanford) it was a done deal no matter how fucked up until it was rectified by the passage of the 13th amendment because the Supreme Court is the law of the land.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish and are you a U.S. citzen?

 

[2aguy]

Which is all very nice and good, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone did as they should. But we don't.

The Supreme Court majority is attempting to make "bear arms" become "carry arms".

Why do you think bear arms doesn't mean to carry arms? To me the plain language of the amendment seems rather clear.

Firstly, logic.

Logic suggests that if you have an amendment that begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of penguins to play chess shall not be infringed."

It makes no sense, right? Clearly, what the hell do penguins have to do with the militia.

Well, the same thing with "the right of the people to carry guns around with them" also doesn't do anything for the militia.

To protect the militia from the Federal government, they protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms. But guns don't kill people, people do.
So they also protected the right to be in the militia. So the militia would have ARMS and PERSONNEL to use those arms.

That's logical. To protect self defense or carrying of arms in an amendment about the militia makes no sense.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Also this document.

It's from the House debates of the future Second Amendment. They discussed this clause that was eventually not a part of the 2A.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then they changed it to:

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Do you see what they meant by "bear arms"? They meant "render military service in person"

Mr Gerry said:

Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

Are you telling me that guys not being able to carry guns around with them would destroy the constitution? Or would it be more that the militia without personnel could destroy the country because the ultimate check and balance on the federal government would be destroyed?

Mr Gerry also said: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

So, he's saying this because he wants to protect the militia, in an amendment that starts with "A well regulated militia", or he's talking about guys carrying guns around???

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

So, Mr Gerry uses "bear arms" synonymously with "militia duty".

And nothing about carrying arms in the whole text.

Here, you fool yourself...



b. “Keep and bear Arms.”

.....We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

-----

......“Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7
-----

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)

(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
------
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arm from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said.