The Right To Bear Arms

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.

Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously. Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

The war on crime, drugs, and terror are all fakes created by the federal government in order to frighten us so that we will accept total domination in order to feel safe.
But the reality is that it is the federal government we need to be frightened of, with all their fake wars and attempts to frighten us.
If there was no federal government at all, the states would all be much better off.
We could have just as strong of a defense against invasion, because no one has ever even tried to invade us since 1812. The whole thing is just a fraud to scare us.

Wrong.

The people are solely responsible for the good – or bad – government they get; the people have only themselves to blame.

The problem isn’t the ‘evil’ Federal government, the problem is the ignorance, stupidity, and apathy of the people.

 

[anynameyouwish]

It doesn't happen over night. It will take up to 10 years to get most of them. And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there. It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.

No, it will never happen.
The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.
It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.

You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.

If the Thompson was ended, it had nothing to do with the ending of the Prohibition. When the illegal booze became legal, the mobs just moved onto something else like Heroin and the like. Getting rid of prohibition didn't end the Thompson, the vigorous enforcement nationwide ended it. If you got caught with a servicable Thompson, you would get a mandatory 10 year federal pen sentence. Do a crime with one and you were a goner for a life sentence for each life taken. Use it in a crime where no one was killed, you were still looking at 25 to life.

It all depends on how serious the sentence is for the possession. You want to stand there in front of a cop who is also armed with a thompson and scream, "You can't tell me what to do". The old time cop would stitch your mid section with 45 projectiles unless you cooperated post haste. Cops just got tired of dying. And in inner cities, that's about where the cops are today. They are tired of dying.

I disagree.
The Thompson came from the depression, Prohibition, and the usual and known causes of crime.
The penalty for murdering someone with a machinegun is the same as murdering someone with a shotgun. Until around the 1970s, the penalty was death. It not only did not matter what weapon you used, but it is not at all clear criminals even care what the penalties are, since they don't think they are going to get caught.

And no, cops were not dying then or now.
No one is shooting at cops except to try to distract them as they try to get away.
Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals.

The reality is that it is a fake issue, deliberately lied about in order to oppress the general population even more. And the people should not be taking it. Unfair taxes that allow such wealth disparity, and causing the lowest percentage of owner occupied housing in US history, is a disgrace. We need public health care, free college tuition, housing subsidies to equal the tax benefits landlords get, the end of wars of aggression, a 50% reduction in military spending (peace dividend we were promised), etc.

If not, then we not only should strike down all gun control laws against the general population, but start to enact laws to disarm the police and severely curtail the military.
It should be clear that guns in the hands of individuals is NOT at all the problem.
It is the overly armed government that is the entire problem.

"Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals."

Still...it can be dangerous and IS dangerous in some areas.

And they are first responders to some grizzly scenes that I wouldn't want to see.

Plus they have to actively try to help people who have been shot, stabbed, been in a terrible car accident (or any kind of accident) and are still alive but in desperate straights....


fuk man

My hat is off to them.

I don't think I could stand some of the situations that is demanded of them.

About once a month we see a video of police accidentally or wrongly shooting an unarmed person. Often the person was totally innocent and did not thing wrong. At worst, some of the videos show the person trying to run away and being shot in the back by police.
And in not one single video of these shootings, do you see a single cop performing any first aid at all. They don't even put on pressure to stop the bleeding.

Maybe some police are doing a better job than that, but then why are they not saying more themselves when you see all these video of wrongful death by police?
Sorry, but unless police are willing to police themselves, then they are all collectively guilty.
And until the US no longer has the highest % of imprisoned in the world, then clearly the main problem in the US has to be the police.

"And until the US no longer has the highest % of imprisoned in the world, then clearly the main problem in the US has to be the police."

Can;t blame police for high incarceration rates.

Ya have to blame the LAW. And those responsible for MAKING those laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Where does it say that in our federal Constitution? It is express not implied. All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.

You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.

{...
The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do. For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.

The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
...}

How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?

As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:

{...
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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.
,,,}

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription


It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.

First of all, a free State is not the national federation of free states, but only one of them.
The point of the Bill of Rights was not to define between individual or state issues, but merely to limit federal authority.

The motivation for the 2nd amendment was the same as the motivation for all of the Bill of Rights, which was to ensure federal limits, so that states would be willing to sign on to the federation.
But it is foolish to claim one badly understood motivation would be the only one.
When clearly the rest of the 2nd amendment says that the "right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed".
It does not say the authority of any level of government, but the right of the people.
And only individuals have any rights at all.
Governments do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority or jurisdiction.

Nice story, bro.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not any implied right wing story.

Of course the 2nd amendment is about the security of a free state, and that requires absolutely NO central weapons control, but maximized individual rights of a democratic republic.
Gun control is the opposite of a democratic republic, where you don't trust the people to be armed, so you instead eliminate all access to the freedom of weapons except by a monopoly or the elite few.
The 2nd amendment clearly says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Only people have rights.
Governments, and even states have no rights.
Instead they have delegated authority from the individuals who are the actual source of all inherent rights.
It does not say that the police or the military shall not be infringed in their bearing of arms.
It says the people.
Do you trust the people or do you instead want the government to have authoritarian dictatorship?

You are ambiguous. The security of a free State may preclude individual rights; only well regulated militia may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

Where does it say that in our federal Constitution? It is express not implied. All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.

You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.

{...
The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do. For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.

The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
...}

How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?

As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:

{...
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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.
,,,}

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription


It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.

Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously. Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

As long as we have a functioning 2nd amendment, then if the people are watchful, we should have no problem with any free state.
But as soon as the federal government is allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights restrictions on federal power, than all is lost.
And the line in the sand is federal gun control.
Clearly any federal gun control is totally and completely illegal, just like waterboarding at Guantanamo or the lies about Iraq having WMD.

The only problem is that the 2nd amendment is useless if we let the federal government ignore it.

Muster the militia until we have no security problems; we have Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.

Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously. Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

The war on crime, drugs, and terror are all fakes created by the federal government in order to frighten us so that we will accept total domination in order to feel safe.
But the reality is that it is the federal government we need to be frightened of, with all their fake wars and attempts to frighten us.
If there was no federal government at all, the states would all be much better off.
We could have just as strong of a defense against invasion, because no one has ever even tried to invade us since 1812. The whole thing is just a fraud to scare us.

All the more reason for mustering the militia, instead.

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously. Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

The war on crime, drugs, and terror are all fakes created by the federal government in order to frighten us so that we will accept total domination in order to feel safe.
But the reality is that it is the federal government we need to be frightened of, with all their fake wars and attempts to frighten us.
If there was no federal government at all, the states would all be much better off.
We could have just as strong of a defense against invasion, because no one has ever even tried to invade us since 1812. The whole thing is just a fraud to scare us.

And we would be speaking and typing something other than American English. Thanks, but no thanks, I think I want to keep the Federal Military even if it's not perfect.

thanks for implying that socialism is more trustworthy than capitalism.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.

{...
The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do. For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.

The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
...}

How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?

As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:

{...
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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.
,,,}

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription


It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.

Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously. Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.

Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously. Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

 

[Lakhota]

Yep, that's how I remember it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you place your trust in the people over that of government, then clearly the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the ‘security of a free state.’

Then, its purpose must clearly be to protect the right of the people.

The bulwark against tyranny is the will of the people, as expressed through the democratic process, safeguarded by the rule of law – not by the people ‘taking up arms’ against a government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ not by an ‘armed insurrection’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people, and not through a ‘force of arms’ absent the consent of the majority of the people as expressed through the political process.

You can’t have it both ways.

You excluded the part where those in power could refuse to do the will of the people, or refuse to turn over power when voted out, or refuse to accept the result of an election.

.

 

[hadit]

Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?

Nobody takes the right wing seriously. Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously. Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

 

[hadit]

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Daniel's a special case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yep, that's how I remember it.

No., it's not - because both of those statements are lies.
Oh wait... since that's all YOU do maybe you DO remember it that way,
Huh.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously. Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

means nothing. our Constitution is express not implied.

 

[danielpalos]

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.

No, it doesn't and cannot. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

 

[hadit]

Define security problem and free states.

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems. We should have no security problems in our free States.

Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

****, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.

Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.

means nothing. our Constitution is express not implied.

Which also means nothing in this context. We have a standing police force in the states. They, along with privately owned firearms, provide security. Like I said, try again in a hundred years or so.

 

[hadit]

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.

No, it doesn't and cannot. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917. I just love these 2nd amendment people.

Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.

No, it doesn't and cannot. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

Which became out of date as of the 1917 National Guard Act. It appears that the gunnuters wants their cake and eat it too and so do you. I say the 2nd amendment needs to be amended in a bad way to keep it current and has needed it for at least a hundred years.