The Right To Bear Arms

[Ame®icano]

I did what you never did post a legitimate source. You gave your opinion.

I doubt it's "his". Lefties don't have own opinions, rather they post opinions of their handlers, that they turn into "feelings".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I doubt it's "his". Lefties don't have own opinions, rather they post opinions of their handlers, that they turn into "feelings".

Ok I will accept that.

 

[easyt65]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

How many armed nutbags attack police precincts and military bases?

How many armed nutbags attack schools, churches, and grocery stores, where there is less of a chance they might get shot?

 

[jc456]

How many armed nutbags attack police precincts and military bases?

How many armed nutbags attack schools, churches, and grocery stores, where there is less of a chance they might get shot?

Well 33 were shot in Chicago this weekend and you didn’t hear shit

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well 33 were shot in Chicago this weekend and you didn’t hear shit

That's a slow weekend for Chicago.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Nope. He's correct. Study it.

Have, and he is wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

By now, most sentient individuals know that whatever you claim, the opposite is the truth.

That makes you a valuable asset.

Hezbollah Hannah lie? Only on days ending in "Y"

 

[jc456]

That's a slow weekend for Chicago.

And it’s never heard whatever the count!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Militia Troops provided support to the Continental Army

They we’re not a professional Army which the Continental Army became. The Continental Army was funded and controlled by the Continental Congress

They were not a militia group.
Most militias were ineffective fighters

It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.

LOL keep making shit up.

 

[jc456]

It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.

Nope

 

[AZrailwhale]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

The only way to change the 2nd would be another amendment or a second constitutional convention. The first will never happen as long as most states are red. The second would have results you would really hate. The minimum I can see would be ironclad protections against the federal government interfering in state government and a radical reduction in both the power of the federal government AND its power to tax,

 

[jc456]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

It will? When?

 

[jc456]

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

Facts like?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.

Racist leftists lie all the time, stop lying

 

[Big Bend Texas]

It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.

There is of course no mention of state militias at all in the 2nd Amendment.

The "militia" was every man capable of bearing arms between 16 and 60 at the time. The unorganized militias more than anything made it possible for the US to hang on long enough for the French to come to our rescue. The Continental Army which consisted primarily of state militias had very few victories during the revolution and if not for the constant harrying of the Brits by the small community militias never giving them any rest or respite victory would likely not have been possible at all.

The unorganized militia cannot do so without the individual right to carry which is why they specifically stated "The Right of The People" not the "Right of the Militia" or "Right of the State".

It is directly tied to our right to self defense, defense of home, self, family, community, state, and the nation.

The writings of the founders make that absolutely clear as again was clearly detailed in the Heller Decision.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture

Yes it does unless and until you Amend The Constitution.

Gun owners have been at the mercy of bad, baseless decisions limiting our 2nd Amendment rights since the end of the civil war.

You folks are going to have to learn with the fact we're taking those rights back one decision at a time and will be for at least the next thirty or forty years.

The solution to "gun violence" has nothing to do with limiting the rights of the law abiding, and has everything to do with fully enforcing existing laws and length prison sentences for the offenders.

Shootings like the one in Buffalo are so rare as to be a statistical zero along with the number of deaths they case.

The vast majority of gun related homicides are related to gang activity and illegal drugs and usually are committed by repeat offenders.

Deal with them appropriately and with the full force of law for a decade or so and then we can talk about what restrictions might further be needed in the future.

Of course, we can also start with the mentally ill which are almost always responsible in the end for the vast majority of these types of shootings.

Again and again we find that the system failed even with glaring warnings to stop these individuals who in many cases had, previously had numerous mental health and violent outburst problems in schools who kept them quiet and when police were called then failed to get them dealt with appropriately in the courts.

Sane, law abiding gun owners are not the problem.

 

[jc456]

It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.

It was? Fk, how old are you?

 

[jc456]

Yes it does unless and until you Amend The Constitution.

Gun owners have been at the mercy of bad, baseless decisions limiting our 2nd Amendment rights since the end of the civil war.

You folks are going to have to learn with the fact we're taking those rights back one decision at a time and will be for at least the next thirty or forty years.

The solution to "gun violence" has nothing to do with limiting the rights of the law abiding, and has everything to do with fully enforcing existing laws and length prison sentences for the offenders.

Shootings like the one in Buffalo are so rare as to be a statistical zero along with the number of deaths they case.

The vast majority of gun related homicides are related to gang activity and illegal drugs and usually are committed by repeat offenders.

Deal with them appropriately and with the full force of law for a decade or so and then we can talk about what restrictions might further be needed in the future.

Of course, we can also start with the mentally ill which are almost always responsible in the end for the vast majority of these types of shootings.

Again and again we find that the system failed even with glaring warnings to stop these individuals who in many cases had, previously had numerous mental health and violent outburst problems in schools who kept them quiet and when police were called then failed to get them dealt with appropriately in the courts.

Sane, law abiding gun owners are not the problem.

Again, the black dude, Darrell E. Brooks,, who drove his SUV down the center of a Parade used a vehicle to kill 6 White people, out on bail bound and a Nationalist. Are we now not allowed to drive?

 

[jc456]

Again, the black dude, Darrell E. Brooks,, who drove his SUV down the center of a Parade used a vehicle to kill 6 White people, out on bail bound and a Nationalist. Are we now not allowed to drive?

Again, that damn fking SUV, they all ought to be banned and stop selling them. Cause it's never about the individual driving it. Has to be the car is a weapon and as such should be eliminated from society.