The Right To Bear Arms

[Friends]

FUCK YOU LEFTIST. YOU won't get my guns, assholes!

When I see a bumper sticker that says, "When guns are outlawed they will take my guns from my cold dead hands," it always seems like a good idea. Buns are a sick brutal fascination for sick, brutal men. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns. I favor confiscation without confiscation.

 

[4Horsemen]

We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government. We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.

Madison said:

"[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​

We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it. Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance. You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.

You don't need convinced that we should own as many guns as we want to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Because, that's just the way it is. Why would anyone need to convince you when those are the facts of the matter? If you need convincing, then you must live in some fantasy land somewhere and you're completely oblivious to the United States Constitution and what it contains. But, since most people aren't as clueless as you? Convincing you really doesn't matter.

My point exactly. Why waste time convincing idiots?

I don't need a Gun Law to tell me I can protect my family or not, I just do it. So if they banned all guns tomorrow, I would still find one to protect my family and friends.

 

[koshergrl]

And if you can't find one, you make one.

And if you make one, you make more than one, and distribute them.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

America was founded on murder and theft.

Then why are you pretending to care so much about the lives of Americans? Oh...wait, that's right, you don't...huh? It's just a ploy to push your anti-gun agenda, using the deaths of these children as a tool because you know a good number of folks are likely emotionally compromised at the moment and now is your chance to strike. Thanks for being so blatantly transparent.

 

[Harry Dresden]

once again.....no reply...........it also means i must be right about this jerk.......its called Character.....

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Wry Catcher]

First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia

Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.


So, what was that about the Second being clear?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.

Having just read the entirety of your link I find no instance of anyone disputing the FACT that the people have a right to arms.

Think you could point that part out to me?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia

Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.


So, what was that about the Second being clear?

Seems pretty clear to me.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3

On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.

All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.

We did? Is it remotely possible that some of us have real lives?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.

Having just read the entirety of your link I find no instance of anyone disputing the FACT that the people have a right to arms.

Think you could point that part out to me?

I like the part where the only part actually removed from the Amendment was the exception for conscientious objectors. If the basic intent was to actually require people to bear arms he cannot argue that the debate was over whether they would be allowed to.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.

Having just read the entirety of your link I find no instance of anyone disputing the FACT that the people have a right to arms.

Think you could point that part out to me?

I like the part where the only part actually removed from the Amendment was the exception for conscientious objectors. If the basic intent was to actually require people to bear arms he cannot argue that the debate was over whether they would be allowed to.

Seems pretty obvious to me, but you can never tell with these Progressives WHAT they'll cook up...

 

[Harry Dresden]

The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.

some people work Wry.....i know that is a tough one to think about....and it is a Holiday.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia

Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.


So, what was that about the Second being clear?

Seems pretty clear to me.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3

On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.

All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.

I read quite well, thank you. Let's put a bit more emphasis on each phrase framed by the intent of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and 16.

The topic phrase in bold is this: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people (of the several states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Reading the amendment in this manner suggests the Second was proposed because each state still held fears about a strong central government and wanted the amendment to defend their State from the central government. Your proof ignored the debate on several levels and I suspect you skipped through the entire link until you found a phrase which supported the conclusion you had at the beginning.

There were dozens of proposals put forth on this one amendment and most dealt with the matter of standing armies vis a vis militia's and not with an individuals right to bear arms. I suspect every rural American in 1789 owned a rifle and it never occurred to the founder's that the right to bear such a gun would ever be infringed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia

Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.


So, what was that about the Second being clear?

Seems pretty clear to me.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3

On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.

All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.

I read quite well, thank you. Let's put a bit more emphasis on each phrase framed by the intent of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and 16.

The topic phrase in bold is this: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people (of the several states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Reading the amendment in this manner suggests the Second was proposed because each state still held fears about a strong central government and wanted to the amendment to defend their State from the central government. Your proof ignored the debate on several levels and I suspect you skipped through the entire link until you found a phrase which supported the conclusion you had at the beginning.

There were dozens of proposals put forth on this one amendment and most dealt with the matter of standing armies vis a vis militia's and not with an individuals right to bear arms. I suspect every rural American in 1789 owned a rifle and it never occurred to the founder's that the right to bear such a gun would ever be infringed.

If we adopt your reading it clearly prohibits national level gun control. If we then read the 14th Amendment, and the debate surrounding it, we discover that the same restrictions apply to the states.

You just lost the debate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.

some people work Wry.....i know that is a tough one to think about....and it is a Holiday.....

True, but the some I was addressing were posting freely and often before the noon hour. As I am approaching my 7th full year of retirement I do remember that some people work.

My last full day of work ended at 5 PM on December 31, 2005.

Have a happy and healthy new year Harry.

 

[Dot Com]

I'm a gun enthusiast but the lobby's, like ALEC, have gone too far

 

[Abatis]

The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.

Why don't you explain in reasoned and supported argument how Feinstein's new "assault weapons" ban is not a blatant violation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as secured by the 2nd Amendment.

I pine for the legal discussions I used to have with anti-gunners back in the 90's.

Nowadays all you anti's have is blind vitriol and idiotic hit-n-run nonsense (Lakhota) . . .

So, you gonna be my huckleberry?