The real history of gun rights that Americans are not taught.

[rightwinger]

The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.

Yeah. They're called SWAT teams.

No, they're called LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. SWAT Teams are the government's enforcers. They are NOT "The PEOPLE".

The Second Amendment is for Citizens, The People, to have a means of defense against a Government that goes BAD. The 2A guarantees the Natural Right of self defense with arms. It insures that we can at least have what a common foot soldier is entitled to carry. Arms that can be cairred by a person. MILITARY style arms.

SWAT teams protect We the People

 

[progressive hunter]

Background checks don't prevent psychopaths from purchasing assault weapons.
If you already own some, fine...unloading 30 rounds on a lifesize Obama mannequin gives you a hard on, go for it. But there are too many crazies in this country for having shelves stocked with automatic weapons designed for war being manufactured and sold.

The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.

It was never the intention to provide military weapons and never allowed

LIAR!!!

 

[progressive hunter]

The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.

Yeah. They're called SWAT teams.

No, they're called LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. SWAT Teams are the government's enforcers. They are NOT "The PEOPLE".

The Second Amendment is for Citizens, The People, to have a means of defense against a Government that goes BAD. The 2A guarantees the Natural Right of self defense with arms. It insures that we can at least have what a common foot soldier is entitled to carry. Arms that can be cairred by a person. MILITARY style arms.

SWAT teams protect We the People

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yes they are. They have fought every effort to enact universal background checks.

Maybe they're smart enough to realize that criminals won't bother with them.

That applies to every law on the books, doesn't it?

pretty much


20,000+ firearm laws on the books.

Criminals ignore them.

thousands of laws on the books regulating driving

Criminals ignore them.

etc etc​

Correction: 45000 federal, state, and local statutes, rules, ordinances, regulations, Executive Orders, court decisions, etc. and counting

Yet criminals ignore every single law, of any kind concerning everything on the books. Are all those laws useless? Should we just eliminate all laws?

I wonder what part of shall not be infringed that the politicians and judges don't get. The left is waaaaay too stupid to understand it; the right has their noses buried in Donald Trump's ass and he's the most gun hating liberal in my lifetime.

All people do is talk about banning the damn guns. Ban the sons of bitches that endanger our lives. The legal and mental health community already know WHO poses a threat to society. So, rather than have people who have racked up 20 police reports, umpteen arrests, gotten suspended from school, reported for violence, etc. investigated and dealt with, all the anti gunners want are more laws that affect weapons and the citizens access to them.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right and the government has no legitimate authority to enforce laws against owning or carrying the weapon (other than the manner in which one may be worn in public.) Government has the power to pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the authority.

 

[Auld Phart]

Background checks don't prevent psychopaths from purchasing assault weapons.
If you already own some, fine...unloading 30 rounds on a lifesize Obama mannequin gives you a hard on, go for it. But there are too many crazies in this country for having shelves stocked with automatic weapons designed for war being manufactured and sold.

The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.

It was never the intention to provide military weapons and never allowed

Who told you that?

 

[rightwinger]

Background checks don't prevent psychopaths from purchasing assault weapons.
If you already own some, fine...unloading 30 rounds on a lifesize Obama mannequin gives you a hard on, go for it. But there are too many crazies in this country for having shelves stocked with automatic weapons designed for war being manufactured and sold.

The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.

It was never the intention to provide military weapons and never allowed

LIAR!!!

LAIR!

 

[rightwinger]

Background checks don't prevent psychopaths from purchasing assault weapons.
If you already own some, fine...unloading 30 rounds on a lifesize Obama mannequin gives you a hard on, go for it. But there are too many crazies in this country for having shelves stocked with automatic weapons designed for war being manufactured and sold.

The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.

It was never the intention to provide military weapons and never allowed

Who told you that?

Our founders never had machine guns.....you can look it up

 

[Auld Phart]

Background checks don't prevent psychopaths from purchasing assault weapons.
If you already own some, fine...unloading 30 rounds on a lifesize Obama mannequin gives you a hard on, go for it. But there are too many crazies in this country for having shelves stocked with automatic weapons designed for war being manufactured and sold.

The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.

It was never the intention to provide military weapons and never allowed

Who told you that?

Our founders never had machine guns.....you can look it up

maybe you should

 

[progressive hunter]

Background checks don't prevent psychopaths from purchasing assault weapons.
If you already own some, fine...unloading 30 rounds on a lifesize Obama mannequin gives you a hard on, go for it. But there are too many crazies in this country for having shelves stocked with automatic weapons designed for war being manufactured and sold.

The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.

It was never the intention to provide military weapons and never allowed

Who told you that?

Our founders never had machine guns.....you can look it up

the 2nd never specifies gun, let alone which kind,,,
so any kind is covered,,,

 

[Auld Phart]

Before Gatling – Who Was The First To Invent A Rapid-Fire Gun? - MilitaryHistoryNow.com

"Puckle Gun – 1718
The brainchild of an English inventor and lawyer by the name of James Puckle, the gun that bore his name was essentially an over-sized, hand-cranked revolver – invented more than 120 years before Samuel Colt’s legendary six-shooter. The weapon, also known as a defense gun, had a single barrel, behind which sat a large 11-chamber cylinder, each loaded with a 32 mm ball (about twice the diameter of a musket round) with a powder charge. Originally intended to be mounted on the sides of warships and fired directly at the deck crews of enemy vessels, the gun could loose about 10 rounds a minute — roughly three times the rate of fire of a musket of the time. Puckle designed two versions – one that fired conventional round shot and another variant launched square bullets. Considered much more lethal than ball shot, these block-shaped rounds were only to be used against Muslim Turks and other non-Christian enemies. While investors had high hopes for the Puckle gun’s popularity, the British military remained unimpressed. The complexity of its design made it impractical, especially in the era before interchangeable parts. Does this mean the gun was ahead of its time? Perhaps. But contemporaries pointed out that the only people ever harmed by the Puckle Gun were its investors."

 

[BULLDOG]

Maybe they're smart enough to realize that criminals won't bother with them.

That applies to every law on the books, doesn't it?

pretty much


20,000+ firearm laws on the books.

Criminals ignore them.

thousands of laws on the books regulating driving

Criminals ignore them.

etc etc​

Correction: 45000 federal, state, and local statutes, rules, ordinances, regulations, Executive Orders, court decisions, etc. and counting

Yet criminals ignore every single law, of any kind concerning everything on the books. Are all those laws useless? Should we just eliminate all laws?

I wonder what part of shall not be infringed that the politicians and judges don't get. The left is waaaaay too stupid to understand it; the right has their noses buried in Donald Trump's ass and he's the most gun hating liberal in my lifetime.

All people do is talk about banning the damn guns. Ban the sons of bitches that endanger our lives. The legal and mental health community already know WHO poses a threat to society. So, rather than have people who have racked up 20 police reports, umpteen arrests, gotten suspended from school, reported for violence, etc. investigated and dealt with, all the anti gunners want are more laws that affect weapons and the citizens access to them.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right and the government has no legitimate authority to enforce laws against owning or carrying the weapon (other than the manner in which one may be worn in public.) Government has the power to pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the authority.

Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That applies to every law on the books, doesn't it?

pretty much


20,000+ firearm laws on the books.

Criminals ignore them.

thousands of laws on the books regulating driving

Criminals ignore them.

etc etc​

Correction: 45000 federal, state, and local statutes, rules, ordinances, regulations, Executive Orders, court decisions, etc. and counting

Yet criminals ignore every single law, of any kind concerning everything on the books. Are all those laws useless? Should we just eliminate all laws?

I wonder what part of shall not be infringed that the politicians and judges don't get. The left is waaaaay too stupid to understand it; the right has their noses buried in Donald Trump's ass and he's the most gun hating liberal in my lifetime.

All people do is talk about banning the damn guns. Ban the sons of bitches that endanger our lives. The legal and mental health community already know WHO poses a threat to society. So, rather than have people who have racked up 20 police reports, umpteen arrests, gotten suspended from school, reported for violence, etc. investigated and dealt with, all the anti gunners want are more laws that affect weapons and the citizens access to them.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right and the government has no legitimate authority to enforce laws against owning or carrying the weapon (other than the manner in which one may be worn in public.) Government has the power to pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the authority.

Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?

You cannot deny to people their Right to keep and bear Arms on the basis of an arrest. The difference between what Donald Trump and I believe in is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Short answer if you don't want to read the rest of this: You can't deny people their Rights based upon arrests.

The best way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in custody (i.e. jail, prison, mental institution.) AFTER a person is convicted of a crime, they should retain ALL of their Rights once their sentence has been completed.

That means that when people are convicted the actually go to prison. Then we institute prison reform. That means we rehabilitate the people in prison OR let them stay there. Early release would be earned. I wrote many pages of proposed legislation on prison reform.

Better than prison reform, I also wrote a bill and am always looking for co - sponsors. It would identify at risk (those we know are going likely to do violence) children / youths and do a civil intervention BEFORE they end up in a life of crime. You identify them and help them before their lives spiral out of control.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

pretty much


20,000+ firearm laws on the books.

Criminals ignore them.

thousands of laws on the books regulating driving

Criminals ignore them.

etc etc​

Correction: 45000 federal, state, and local statutes, rules, ordinances, regulations, Executive Orders, court decisions, etc. and counting

Yet criminals ignore every single law, of any kind concerning everything on the books. Are all those laws useless? Should we just eliminate all laws?

I wonder what part of shall not be infringed that the politicians and judges don't get. The left is waaaaay too stupid to understand it; the right has their noses buried in Donald Trump's ass and he's the most gun hating liberal in my lifetime.

All people do is talk about banning the damn guns. Ban the sons of bitches that endanger our lives. The legal and mental health community already know WHO poses a threat to society. So, rather than have people who have racked up 20 police reports, umpteen arrests, gotten suspended from school, reported for violence, etc. investigated and dealt with, all the anti gunners want are more laws that affect weapons and the citizens access to them.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right and the government has no legitimate authority to enforce laws against owning or carrying the weapon (other than the manner in which one may be worn in public.) Government has the power to pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the authority.

Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?

You cannot deny to people their Right to keep and bear Arms on the basis of an arrest. The difference between what Donald Trump and I believe in is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Short answer if you don't want to read the rest of this: You can't deny people their Rights based upon arrests.

The best way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in custody (i.e. jail, prison, mental institution.) AFTER a person is convicted of a crime, they should retain ALL of their Rights once their sentence has been completed.

That means that when people are convicted the actually go to prison. Then we institute prison reform. That means we rehabilitate the people in prison OR let them stay there. Early release would be earned. I wrote many pages of proposed legislation on prison reform.

Better than prison reform, I also wrote a bill and am always looking for co - sponsors. It would identify at risk (those we know are going likely to do violence) children / youths and do a civil intervention BEFORE they end up in a life of crime. You identify them and help them before their lives spiral out of control.

Not to oversimplify it, but if someone is arrested (or for youth has reportable offenses - even in school) three or more times in less than 2 years, they need a civil intervention to see what is going on in their life. Identify the problem (s) and deal with it.

 

[the other mike]

"... Because we have mixed feelings; we wouldn’t mind an armed revolution; I really wouldn’t, you know. That’s not the same as, I don’t have to have the Second Amendment to help with an armed revolution. Because I would be, you know–*you’re going to be criminalized anyway. You say, oh, they gave me the right to overthrow them–you know, it’s an absurd argument that you need the Second Amendment to make a revolution. That, you know, that’s a contradiction in terms."
Lies Liberals Tell Themselves About the Second Amendment

*With or without a gun , if they decide to come after you as
a dissenter or any kind of threat to their 'national security' apparatus,
you don't stand a chance without the police and military on your side. Make no mistake, they will wage war on their enemy 7000 miles away or right here( just ask the ND water protectors). And they run out of prison space, they have plenty of FEMA camps ready to go.

 

[Leo123]

Well, all I can say is if someone breaks into my property threatening me with a gun, I sure as Hell want a bigger more powerful gun. Why should criminals be the only ones to own guns?

 

[Leo123]

Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?

They buy them (guns) illegally and that will never be stopped. My suggestion is to SHOOT them when they threaten YOU with their ILLEGAL gun. Trust me, most criminals are cowards and depend on an unarmed populace. Once they get knocked off on a regular basis, by armed innocent folks protecting themselves, a lot of this 'gun violence' will come to a screeching halt.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?

They buy them (guns) illegally and that will never be stopped. My suggestion is to SHOOT them when they threaten YOU with their ILLEGAL gun. Trust me, most criminals are cowards and depend on an unarmed populace. Once they get knocked off on a regular basis, by armed innocent folks protecting themselves, a lot of this 'gun violence' will come to a screeching halt.

It already has. since the 90s firearms crimes are down a damn lot with the steady increase of armed civilians.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Correction: 45000 federal, state, and local statutes, rules, ordinances, regulations, Executive Orders, court decisions, etc. and counting

Yet criminals ignore every single law, of any kind concerning everything on the books. Are all those laws useless? Should we just eliminate all laws?

I wonder what part of shall not be infringed that the politicians and judges don't get. The left is waaaaay too stupid to understand it; the right has their noses buried in Donald Trump's ass and he's the most gun hating liberal in my lifetime.

All people do is talk about banning the damn guns. Ban the sons of bitches that endanger our lives. The legal and mental health community already know WHO poses a threat to society. So, rather than have people who have racked up 20 police reports, umpteen arrests, gotten suspended from school, reported for violence, etc. investigated and dealt with, all the anti gunners want are more laws that affect weapons and the citizens access to them.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right and the government has no legitimate authority to enforce laws against owning or carrying the weapon (other than the manner in which one may be worn in public.) Government has the power to pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the authority.

Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?

You cannot deny to people their Right to keep and bear Arms on the basis of an arrest. The difference between what Donald Trump and I believe in is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Short answer if you don't want to read the rest of this: You can't deny people their Rights based upon arrests.

The best way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in custody (i.e. jail, prison, mental institution.) AFTER a person is convicted of a crime, they should retain ALL of their Rights once their sentence has been completed.

That means that when people are convicted the actually go to prison. Then we institute prison reform. That means we rehabilitate the people in prison OR let them stay there. Early release would be earned. I wrote many pages of proposed legislation on prison reform.

Better than prison reform, I also wrote a bill and am always looking for co - sponsors. It would identify at risk (those we know are going likely to do violence) children / youths and do a civil intervention BEFORE they end up in a life of crime. You identify them and help them before their lives spiral out of control.

Not to oversimplify it, but if someone is arrested (or for youth has reportable offenses - even in school) three or more times in less than 2 years, they need a civil intervention to see what is going on in their life. Identify the problem (s) and deal with it.

I like your ideas. Do you believe that had this been the law of the land, that Nik Cruz, the Parkland shooter, would/could have been in custody on numerous occasions which may have prevented him from ending up as a mass shooter?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yet criminals ignore every single law, of any kind concerning everything on the books. Are all those laws useless? Should we just eliminate all laws?

I wonder what part of shall not be infringed that the politicians and judges don't get. The left is waaaaay too stupid to understand it; the right has their noses buried in Donald Trump's ass and he's the most gun hating liberal in my lifetime.

All people do is talk about banning the damn guns. Ban the sons of bitches that endanger our lives. The legal and mental health community already know WHO poses a threat to society. So, rather than have people who have racked up 20 police reports, umpteen arrests, gotten suspended from school, reported for violence, etc. investigated and dealt with, all the anti gunners want are more laws that affect weapons and the citizens access to them.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right and the government has no legitimate authority to enforce laws against owning or carrying the weapon (other than the manner in which one may be worn in public.) Government has the power to pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the authority.

Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?

You cannot deny to people their Right to keep and bear Arms on the basis of an arrest. The difference between what Donald Trump and I believe in is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Short answer if you don't want to read the rest of this: You can't deny people their Rights based upon arrests.

The best way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in custody (i.e. jail, prison, mental institution.) AFTER a person is convicted of a crime, they should retain ALL of their Rights once their sentence has been completed.

That means that when people are convicted the actually go to prison. Then we institute prison reform. That means we rehabilitate the people in prison OR let them stay there. Early release would be earned. I wrote many pages of proposed legislation on prison reform.

Better than prison reform, I also wrote a bill and am always looking for co - sponsors. It would identify at risk (those we know are going likely to do violence) children / youths and do a civil intervention BEFORE they end up in a life of crime. You identify them and help them before their lives spiral out of control.

Not to oversimplify it, but if someone is arrested (or for youth has reportable offenses - even in school) three or more times in less than 2 years, they need a civil intervention to see what is going on in their life. Identify the problem (s) and deal with it.

I like your ideas. Do you believe that had this been the law of the land, that Nik Cruz, the Parkland shooter, would/could have been in custody on numerous occasions which may have prevented him from ending up as a mass shooter?

He would have been in custody. Given the police reports and the times he was in trouble both in school and at home, he would probably ended up on a boys ranch, learning some values and coping skills.

He also needed a strong male model to help him navigate the complexities of life and give him something more to do than play violent video games and fantasize about chaos, mayhem, and death.

All sides of the political spectrum have something they're good at. Where I live, private organizations are doing things like mentorship programs that really impact the lives of the youth. Look at what these people have accomplished:

About The 100 – 100 Black Men of Atlanta

Being white, I'm really frustrated by the fact that when I started a ministry with the intent of offering the same kinds of services, the predominantly white population, including the local politicians, ignored me. Yet the fact is, most mass shooters are white. If there is no interest from private citizens to better their culture, then it means the government will have to take all the reports they generate, extrapolate what they can, and focus on finding the root of the problem (a drug addicted kid, one without parental supervision, a dysfunctional home, drug addicted / abusive parents, etc.) and address the underlying cause of the problem, not cover it up with drugs and wait for the inevitable to happen.

Thanks for the words of support. They mean a lot when nothing is happening and it says that you care about the future of our country.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"... Because we have mixed feelings; we wouldn’t mind an armed revolution; I really wouldn’t, you know. That’s not the same as, I don’t have to have the Second Amendment to help with an armed revolution. Because I would be, you know–*you’re going to be criminalized anyway. You say, oh, they gave me the right to overthrow them–you know, it’s an absurd argument that you need the Second Amendment to make a revolution. That, you know, that’s a contradiction in terms."
Lies Liberals Tell Themselves About the Second Amendment

*With or without a gun , if they decide to come after you as
a dissenter or any kind of threat to their 'national security' apparatus,
you don't stand a chance without the police and military on your side. Make no mistake, they will wage war on their enemy 7000 miles away or right here( just ask the ND water protectors). And they run out of prison space, they have plenty of FEMA camps ready to go.

I see all sides of this. According to Thomas Jefferson:

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

I do not believe that we have a Right to have an armed revolt against the government unless and until the people have agreed to and done the following:

1) The current government is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional government that is operating outside the bounds of the Constitution

2) That the people have exhausted all of their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress

3) Any armed conflict will be in response to the government trying to enforce unjust, unconstitutional and indefensible laws.

This country had a mere 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence. Jesus changed the world (whether you believe he was or was not the son of God) with a dozen apostles. On the other side of the political spectrum, Hitler began with a few men sitting around the table in a local pub. He damn near ruled the world with a country no bigger than the size of Texas. Successful changes in the status quo do not start with the masses. You don't need the military on your side. The U.S. did not win in Southeast Asia, despite having the same advantage over the VC as government has over us. Ditto for the Russians trying to take over in Afghanistan.

We are living in the times of the most anti-gun president in the history of the United States. There is a lot to do.