The Right To Bear Arms

[bripat9643]

View attachment 730133

Warren Burger is the world's biggest con artists. There is no evidence that the founder's added the Second Amendment to maintain state armies. Why would they need the 2nd amendment for that? Every country n the world already had a government military,

 

[Billy000]

So, let's rely on Barney for our protection.

Only he should have guns...........

No one is talking about taking away their guns. The point is, even with guns, they are clearly useless lol. Let’s give guns to actual competent police instead.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[DukeU]

No one is talking about taking away their guns. The point is, even with guns, they are clearly useless lol. Let’s give guns to actual competent police instead.

No one!




Didn't you just "like" a post basically comparing police to Barney Fife?

 

[Billy000]

No one!




Didn't you just "like" a post basically comparing police to Barney Fife?

What are you talking about right now? Why does saying Texas police resemble Barney mean I oppose guns? Are you even listening to yourself?

 

[DukeU]

What are you talking about right now? Why does saying Texas police resemble Barney mean I oppose guns? Are you even listening to yourself?

Well, let's clear the air.

Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Did you ever stop to think that yard darts serve no other purpose other than a game?
Same with the clacker balls.

 

[Billy000]

Well, let's clear the air.

Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?

I’m for it but with caveats. That’s how you sum up the typical leftwing ideology on guns. You like to pretend it means we oppose guns altogether but that’s always been nonsense.

 

[DukeU]

I’m for it but with caveats.

We have 20,000+ caveats on guns.

 

[Billy000]

We have 20,000+ caveats on guns.

You don’t know the true number with or without that exaggeration. You like to pretend there can’t be ANY compromise. It’s long overdo for you to see otherwise.

 

[DukeU]

You don’t know the true number with or without that exaggeration. You like to pretend there can’t be ANY compromise. It’s long overdo for you to see otherwise.

What is the true number?


How much more compromise should there be?

Which new gun law that you propose would have stopped the latest shootings?

 

[Billy000]

What is the true number?


How much more compromise should there be?

Which new gun law that you propose would have stopped the latest shootings?

I don’t know the true number either, but I know better than to exaggerate the number.

No laws would have prevented the latest shootings. That doesn’t somehow mean we be defeatist pussies and don’t even try to curb gun violence. Of course, civilians being prevented from owning pointless AR-15 rifles would go a long way. I mean clearly that is the weapon of choice for mass shooters. That has been the case over and over and over again. So while outlawing such rifles probably wouldn’t have prevented the COS shooter from carrying out his plan, it’s possible a lesser weapon would minimize casualties.

Of course, altogether, banning certain guns shouldn’t be the focus. The focus should be on laws that aim to keep guns out the possession of those mentally unstable. It should be laws that make it more difficult to obtain guns. If all that helps, then sure, we can keep those semi automatic rifles on the market. I doubt that’s the case though.

Doesn’t it bother you that other politically stable first world nations do not have mass shootings like we do? Have you ever wondered why? Take Israel. You have to be at least 27 to own a gun. It requires a psychiatric evaluation and background check. Guess what? That government is stable isn’t? The citizens don’t feel threatened by their government. The country exists peacefully. It’s the only democracy in the Middle East. I guess strict gun laws is not the road to fascism is it?

 

[LuckyDuck]

While the first part of the paragraph addresses the right for states to have well regulated militias, the second half specifically addressed its citizenry in that the "right" of the people to bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed (limited or undermined), to protect the "freedom" of their state.
If said state is taken over (whether by vote or not) by a Marxist-Communist government, it is the duty of citizens to form their own "regulated militias," to restore their state to the freedoms under the Bill of Rights and thus under our Constitution.

 

[there4eyeM]

Obviously, militia-level training in use and safety should be required, especially for the massive firepower of modern weapons.

 

[Batcat]

View attachment 730133

You might find this article about the meme you posted interesting. …

Warren Burger Meme Bungles 2nd Amendment

A fatuous new meme has gained sudden social media popularity among gun-grabbers in their ongoing campaign to render the Second Amendment meaningless. The meme features a portrait of former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger, alongside a 1990 quote that somehow sprang to life after...

www.cfif.org

***snip***

Instead of reviving obscure, decades-old quotations from a retired Chief Justice who never actually participated in a significant Second Amendment case during his tenure, anyone engaging in the Second Amendment debate should simply read the Heller majority opinion to understand the constitutional and historical realities.

It’s unfortunate that Burger chose to opine in such a careless, conclusory manner in an offhand pop-culture Parade Magazine piece. But fortunately, a more informed opinion prevailed when the Supreme Court finally settled the matter in Heller.

 

[Harry Dresden]

View attachment 730133

lakota who were those "people" mentioned in the 2nd?....

 

[gipper]

You might find this article about the meme you posted interesting. …

Warren Burger Meme Bungles 2nd Amendment

A fatuous new meme has gained sudden social media popularity among gun-grabbers in their ongoing campaign to render the Second Amendment meaningless. The meme features a portrait of former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger, alongside a 1990 quote that somehow sprang to life after...

www.cfif.org

***snip***

Instead of reviving obscure, decades-old quotations from a retired Chief Justice who never actually participated in a significant Second Amendment case during his tenure, anyone engaging in the Second Amendment debate should simply read the Heller majority opinion to understand the constitutional and historical realities.

It’s unfortunate that Burger chose to opine in such a careless, conclusory manner in an offhand pop-culture Parade Magazine piece. But fortunately, a more informed opinion prevailed when the Supreme Court finally settled the matter in Heller.

Yes. The Bill of Rights was clearly all about individual rights. Not collective rights. If Burger’s statement is accurate, it makes no sense.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 730133

Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot…….they agree with those statements……

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 651489

Go Canada!

Ye……Germany did the exact same thing……..then 19 years later murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children…………

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 730133

Close: not "defense of the State as in Govt" but defense of the laws as in the Natural laws in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, arms and militant force are NOT to be used for criminal violations of the laws, but to enforce the laws even in and especially in cases where the "people in govt power" abuse authority to violate rights and laws.

For example, in cases where a police officer or prison guard is raping a detained victim, if another witness happens to catch this crime going on, that person might need to use force or a weapon to make that offender stop, even though the offender is a govt employee and the person stopping the crime is a civilian and not in any official govt capacity.

Lakhota I respect your right to YOUR interpretation and beliefs regarding this law and the Constitution as a whole. But cannot justify imposing YOUR beliefs on the rest of the nation that disagrees.

It makes equal sense, history wise, that the signers and authors of the Bill of Rights included this principle after the Revolution was fought against British authorities who did seize weapons from the American Colonists as part of the oppressive "tyranny of taxation without representation." The whole point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights added as a condition for ratification, was to represent the people in forming a govt system to check itself.

The ultimate check on govt abuses is the people, and the framers knew this. That's why we still have the same divisions we saw back then between the Federalists and Antifederalists, also known as the Statists vs the Libertarians, or the Radical Liberals vs the Classic Liberals

To this day, the Second Amendment can be interpreted BOTH ways.

I believe that putting the people first, still allows the people to agree how to defend rights laws and protections for security, including using govt and or using armed enforcement, but assuming authority only belongs to govt doesn't allow equal freedom of both viewpoints.

Therefore, similar to putting prochoice positions first, as the default, to allow both prochoice and prolife beliefs, I also recommend putting the interpretation first, as the default, that the people retain "rights to defense" against criminal threats violations and abuses, even by govt agents or entities, and then using that authority of the people in enforcing laws to then support by consent any regulations on armed force deemed in keeping with those laws through govt.

Let's call for a Conference between Liberal Statists and Conservative Libertarians on both the right to bear arms, the right to vote under agreed protocols, and the rights to due process in cases of abortion, immigration, and other debated policies causing conflicts.

The standard for any such Council consultations between people and parties, media and govt, should be 1. Equal inclusion without punishing or bullying anyone for their political, religious or ideological beliefs 2. Agreement to respect any divisions or objections regarding conflicting beliefs, where such people or groups have equal right to separate from opposing groups and govern their own members, similar to religious denominations managed voluntarily, separating from govt to prevent imposing their beliefs on others.
3. And agreeing to reach a consensus on either common points and plans before recommending such reforms corrections and solutions to govt or public institutions to implement, and or on conceding points of differences in policy beliefs or creeds, such as political party platforms, that all parties agree to delegate to party precincts or local councils to manage democratically on local levels to respect equal "public Accommodations" for people of all creeds or parties and settle conflicts that way without imposing or infringing on the equal rights and protections of others.

How about calling a party convention between the various party leaders and members willing to write out a truce?

In exchange for protecting each parties' rights to enforce express and exercise their own platforms, they also agree to stop abusing govt to force those ideologies on other people or parties that object due to defense or violation of their beliefs that cannot be regulated by govt either.

Let's agree to recognize political beliefs as equally protected by the First, Fourteenth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments as well as Civil Rights to Public Accommodations without Discriminating by Creed.

All in favor, let's convene and respect each other's rights and beliefs, interests and consent, by the same "Golden Rule" standards we want our own rights and protections to be respected and included.

Then when we settle all conflicts to establish where we agree and where we disagree, we can better implement reforms and solutions through state, federal or local govt and public institutions, party and media, that respect these principles we agree on and points where we disagree and need diverse representation for each case of differences where govt cannot mandate but requires consent of the people where beliefs are involved and can't be forced by govt to change.

In the name of Justice, known as Jesus, I call for prayer unity and commitment to Peace, known as the Holy Spirit, to be received and restored by consensus formed among we the people, known as the church body under Scriptural authority and known as the the govt under natural laws in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that we all agree to govern ourselves and our relations, whether inside or outside govt, by the Golden Rule of Equal Justice and Peace and no longer abuse the party media or govt structures to "conspire to violate equal civil rights of others."

See also www.ethics-commission.net

Lakhota Let's write to AOC and Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders, Trump and Beto, Clinton and Biden, and ask to set up a Constitutional Council of Parties to address and resolve all these matters without affecting current govt. Acting as advisers to both Media, Party and Govt leaders on points of Agreement and points of differences so Govt is only used to implement and enforce Agreed policies while the people reclaim responsibility for resolving and managing where we have differences in beliefs and creeds that govt cannot impose on others by force but which require consent.

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, known as the Kingdom of God or Universal Truth, Justice and Peace, I call for all three to be established by consent of the people regardless of Creed by including all people and parties, all denominations and beliefs, to mediate and resolve these issues without any further bullying by coercion or exclusion, and by teaching and enforcing the Golden Rule of equal respect and protections for others as we want for ourselves.

May truth, justice and peace be received and restored for all people, tribes and nations by this process. Thank you and Amen. Lord hear our prayers and may all petitions be heard and resolved in perfect peace.

Thank you!

Yours truly,
Emily

Emily Nghiem
Houston Texas

In calling for a
Constitutional Council to address separation of parties from govt, including separation of taxation and representation to protect equal public accommodations for people of all creeds, and settlement plans for restitution, reimbursement and corrections for past abuses of govt, party, or corporate entities for which individuals and public taxpayers are owed for debts and damages.
Cooperative Council to assist all groups and districts in managing their own resources including businesses, schools, health care, police and govt to be self reliant and democratically self governing.
and Christian council for private reconciliation and mediation outside of govt for individuals and groups to prevent abuse of media and parties to interfere with govt policies and process.