# Why was the second amendment written?



## EvMetro

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


----------



## fncceo

They needed an amendment between one and three.

Otherwise, it would look silly.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.




That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.


----------



## ABikerSailor

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.


----------



## Indeependent

Bo Didleysquat said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
Click to expand...

Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.


----------



## fncceo

Bo Didleysquat said:


> lagging behind 21st century tech.



I'm down with that...


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Indeependent said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.
Click to expand...

Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

fncceo said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
Click to expand...

No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.


----------



## Indeependent

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
Click to expand...

Is that why Trump just signed an EO to stop doing exactly that?


----------



## Indeependent

Bo Didleysquat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
Click to expand...

Detroit and Chicago don’t seem to mind such details.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Indeependent said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why Trump just signed an EO to stop doing exactly that?
Click to expand...

As he sucks off the Saudis?  He just tried to pull a coup in Venezuela again to install a handpicked dictator.  It's just what america does.


----------



## Indeependent

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why Trump just signed an EO to stop doing exactly that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he sucks off the Saudis?  He just tried to pull a coup in Venezuela again to install a handpicked dictator.  It's just what america does.
Click to expand...

I disagree with Trump kissing Saudi ass.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Indeependent said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Detroit and Chicago don’t seem to mind such details.
Click to expand...


My bad, I hadn't heard they'd established themselves as independent nation states.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Indeependent said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
> 
> 
> 
> Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why Trump just signed an EO to stop doing exactly that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he sucks off the Saudis?  He just tried to pull a coup in Venezuela again to install a handpicked dictator.  It's just what america does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree with Trump kissing Saudi ass.
Click to expand...

We support 73% of the world's dictatorships.


----------



## Indeependent

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Detroit and Chicago don’t seem to mind such details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad, I hadn't heard they'd established themselves as independent nation states.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should inform every gang in the US.


----------



## fncceo

Bo Didleysquat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
Click to expand...


I understand that technically inferior force can never prevail against superior technology ... unless they wear pajamas.


----------



## Indeependent

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why Trump just signed an EO to stop doing exactly that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he sucks off the Saudis?  He just tried to pull a coup in Venezuela again to install a handpicked dictator.  It's just what america does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree with Trump kissing Saudi ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
Click to expand...

God bless Congress.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Indeependent said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why Trump just signed an EO to stop doing exactly that?
Click to expand...


Got a link to that particular EO?


----------



## Indeependent

ABikerSailor said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why Trump just signed an EO to stop doing exactly that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link to that particular EO?
Click to expand...

Google it.
I’m on my iPhone.
It was posted here and not one Liberal responded.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Bo Didleysquat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
Click to expand...



Extended military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, among other places, proves you wrong.


----------



## Indeependent

I work with at least 20 people who have gun and rifle collections and they are way calmer than any Liberal I have ever met.


----------



## progressive hunter

Bo Didleysquat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
Click to expand...



the taliban seem to do pretty good against all those things,,,


----------



## Harry Dresden

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because there are no totalitarian nations left on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why Trump just signed an EO to stop doing exactly that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he sucks off the Saudis?  He just tried to pull a coup in Venezuela again to install a handpicked dictator.  It's just what america does.
Click to expand...

its better we do that there than china or russia....


----------



## Desperado

Bo Didleysquat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> That's what they said in Afghanistan 18 years ago too, yet we are still there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
Click to expand...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Bo Didleysquat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
Click to expand...


  You still dont get it.....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


 Joyce Lee Malcolm is a Professor for the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School. she would be an excellent choice for the supreme court if she was 20 years younger.
Joyce Lee Malcolm | C-SPAN.org


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Bo Didleysquat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
Click to expand...

There are some leftists cheering about the US. getting it ass kicked by some goat fuckers in Afghanistan 
How did all that shit work out in Afghanistan?


----------



## ABikerSailor

fncceo said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that technically inferior force can never prevail against superior technology ... unless they wear pajamas.
Click to expand...


Guess that we better start wearing pajamas then, because Russia just leapfrogged ahead of us in hypersonic technology.  They currently have missiles that are fired from aircraft that can hit 10 times the speed of sound, and they have already been deployed into the field.  They now have another land and sub launched missile that not only travels at 20 times the speed of sound, but it can also change direction in mid flight, making it VERY hard to detect.

Putin unveils another new hypersonic missile after boasting Russia is ONLY country to have them | Daily Mail Online

And, here is a very interesting article as to why they are so dangerous and why it should scare our military.

The U.S. Military Would Lose to Russian Hypersonic Missiles


----------



## fncceo

ABikerSailor said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that technically inferior force can never prevail against superior technology ... unless they wear pajamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess that we better start wearing pajamas then, because Russia just leapfrogged ahead of us in hypersonic technology.  They currently have missiles that are fired from aircraft that can hit 10 times the speed of sound, and they have already been deployed into the field.  They now have another land and sub launched missile that not only travels at 20 times the speed of sound, but it can also change direction in mid flight, making it VERY hard to detect.
> 
> Putin unveils another new hypersonic missile after boasting Russia is ONLY country to have them | Daily Mail Online
> 
> And, here is a very interesting article as to why they are so dangerous and why it should scare our military.
> 
> The U.S. Military Would Lose to Russian Hypersonic Missiles
Click to expand...


Article from 2013 -- six years ago

Army successfully launches Advanced Hypersonic Weapon demonstrator | …


----------



## bigrebnc1775

ABikerSailor said:


> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.





> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.


Well Regulated as to be expected in working order. The U.S. Congress is not well regulated therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.


Anyone who has really been in the military and saw how other countries are controlled would not have an opinion that you have. And the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.



> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.


As a firearms expert, I can say whatever works for a person they should have access to it Nonexperts give an opinion don't have a clue what a person might need. The person involved should make that call what they need and feel comfortable with.
Just my expert opinion.


----------



## Blackrook

The people should not trust a government that does not trust the people to own guns.


----------



## Weatherman2020

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


Honorable men who put the interests of citizens over their personal desires wrote it. 

The Founding Fathers could have easily obtained life jobs running the new nation as rulers, yet intentionally created a government where they could not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

ABikerSailor said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that technically inferior force can never prevail against superior technology ... unless they wear pajamas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess that we better start wearing pajamas then, because Russia just leapfrogged ahead of us in hypersonic technology.  They currently have missiles that are fired from aircraft that can hit 10 times the speed of sound, and they have already been deployed into the field.  They now have another land and sub launched missile that not only travels at 20 times the speed of sound, but it can also change direction in mid flight, making it VERY hard to detect.
> 
> Putin unveils another new hypersonic missile after boasting Russia is ONLY country to have them | Daily Mail Online
> 
> And, here is a very interesting article as to why they are so dangerous and why it should scare our military.
> 
> The U.S. Military Would Lose to Russian Hypersonic Missiles
Click to expand...

The military already has better weapons


----------



## bluzman61

Weatherman2020 said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> Honorable men who put the interests of citizens over their personal desires wrote it.
> 
> The Founding Fathers could have easily obtained life jobs running the new nation as rulers, yet intentionally created a government where they could not.
Click to expand...

Easily THE best post I've seen in this thread.  Nicely done!


----------



## bodecea

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


The first 10 Amendments were written because America hated when the British authorities took those rights away.....An obvious case in point, the frequently forgotten Third Amendment.   Another clue is read the main body of the Declaration of Independence, the part most people don't read.....it is a long list of all the complaints the colonists had against Britain.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bluzman61 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> Honorable men who put the interests of citizens over their personal desires wrote it.
> 
> The Founding Fathers could have easily obtained life jobs running the new nation as rulers, yet intentionally created a government where they could not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easily THE best post I've seen in this thread.  Nicely done!
Click to expand...

After the whiskey rebellion, George Washington could have pushed Congress to amend the second amendment but he didn't


----------



## bodecea

Indeependent said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Detroit and Chicago don’t seem to mind such details.
Click to expand...

How about Alaska, the deadly-est state in the Union....or St. Louis, the deadly-est city.....?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> The first 10 Amendments were written because America hated when the British authorities took those rights away.....An obvious case in point, the frequently forgotten Third Amendment.   Another clue is read the main body of the Declaration of Independence, the part most people don't read.....it is a long list of all the complaints the colonists had against Britain.
Click to expand...

and therefore they knew an unarmed populace would lose their rights once again if they did not have the ability to fight back protected.


----------



## bodecea

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are some leftists cheering about the US. getting it ass kicked by some goat fuckers in Afghanistan
> How did all that shit work out in Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

No one is cheering, but we sure can't help pointing out that massive fire power doesn't always work.


----------



## fncceo

bodecea said:


> we sure can't help pointing out that massive fire power doesn't always work.



If your massive firepower doesn't work ... then your firepower isn't massive enough.

_"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over"_ -- Fudd's 1st Law of Opposition


----------



## miketx

Bo Didleysquat said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now, those who might have, waited too long.  18th century ideologues lagging behind 21st century tech.  The gun is a fetish symbol for what we refused to unite against and resist.
Click to expand...

Come get them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are some leftists cheering about the US. getting it ass kicked by some goat fuckers in Afghanistan
> How did all that shit work out in Afghanistan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is cheering, but we sure can't help pointing out that massive fire power doesn't always work.
Click to expand...

Yes they are
One of the leftist here started a thread cheering about America withdrawing and getting their asses kicked
I can't find the thread it was either killed or locked out because I got thread banned
As a matter of fact I believe it was BO DIDLEYSQUAT who started that thread.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


Your understanding is wrong.

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, not to fight crime, and not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

Indeed, there’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that supports insurrectionist dogma, the wrongheaded notion that the Amendment authorizes citizens with small arms to ‘take back’ government gone ‘out of control’:

‘How crazy is the insurrectionist view that appears to be driving the opposition to expanded background checks, for fear of a national firearms registry, for fear of a totalitarian federal government?  It's so crazy that even Justice Scalia, writing in _Heller_, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant the preposterousness of insurrectionism.  He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’

Dorf on Law: The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Indeependent said:


> I work with at least 20 people who have gun and rifle collections and they are way calmer than any Liberal I have ever met.


Obviously you’ve met very few ‘liberals’ – if any.

And ‘liberals’ have gun and rifle collections, enjoy the shooting sports, and possess firearms for self-defense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> Your understanding is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, not to fight crime, and not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.
> 
> Indeed, there’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that supports insurrectionist dogma, the wrongheaded notion that the Amendment authorizes citizens with small arms to ‘take back’ government gone ‘out of control’:
> 
> ‘How crazy is the insurrectionist view that appears to be driving the opposition to expanded background checks, for fear of a national firearms registry, for fear of a totalitarian federal government?  It's so crazy that even Justice Scalia, writing in _Heller_, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant the preposterousness of insurrectionism.  He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’
> 
> Dorf on Law: The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"
Click to expand...

One of your leftist buddies was cheering in a thread they started about the U.S. withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and getting their asses kicked how did that military might work out against some goat fuckers?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


It’s not a matter of anyone ‘agreeing’; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

And that case law in no manner supports ‘fighting tyranny.’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First – it doesn’t take from the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process; it doesn’t authorize a minority of citizens to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people by ‘force of arms.’


----------



## miketx

i just found out that by unanimous decision our county is now a second amendment sanctuary county. The resolution states that officials will devote no money or resources of any kind that infringe on gun rights. Come shi*t stains, come get them and get your ass thrown in jail!


----------



## miketx

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not a matter of anyone ‘agreeing’; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> And that case law in no manner supports ‘fighting tyranny.’
> 
> The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First – it doesn’t take from the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process; it doesn’t authorize a minority of citizens to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people by ‘force of arms.’
Click to expand...

Come get them scumbag.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not a matter of anyone ‘agreeing’; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> And that case law in no manner supports ‘fighting tyranny.’
> 
> The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First – it doesn’t take from the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process; it doesn’t authorize a minority of citizens to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people by ‘force of arms.’
Click to expand...

judiciary tyranny is what you just gave an example of.
Without a second you wouldn't have a first


----------



## S.J.

They put the 2nd amendment there because they knew some day the slaves would be freed by a Republican and Democrats would put them on welfare and in ghettos, knowing  they would eventually turn on each other so they wanted to make sure there would be plenty of guns to make it easier to kill each other off.  That's what I was told anyway.


----------



## there4eyeM

The Second Amendment was written by people who were aware of their recent and past history. Aware people today understand that as well as the fact that it is no longer 1776.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.



  One of Britain's first acts of war against America was an attempt to confiscate our weapons.

  The great men who wrote the Constitution clearly understand that retaining our weapons was essential in our ability to fight off the British, and to establish our independence from them.  As Mao Zedong would later observe, _“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”_  Mao, of course, wanted that power to be in the hands of his country's government, his country's Communist party.  The great men who founded this nation, and who wrote our Constitution, wanted this power to be in the hands, not of the government, but of the people, recognizing that this was the only way to preserve the freedoms that they fought so hard, and sacrificed so much, to establish.


----------



## Indeependent

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I work with at least 20 people who have gun and rifle collections and they are way calmer than any Liberal I have ever met.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you’ve met very few ‘liberals’ – if any.
> 
> And ‘liberals’ have gun and rifle collections, enjoy the shooting sports, and possess firearms for self-defense.
Click to expand...

I meet lots of a Democrats and never want to meet  a Liberal a second time.


----------



## EvMetro

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> Your understanding is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, not to fight crime, and not to ‘overthrow’ a government incorrectly and subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.
> 
> Indeed, there’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that supports insurrectionist dogma, the wrongheaded notion that the Amendment authorizes citizens with small arms to ‘take back’ government gone ‘out of control’:
> 
> ‘How crazy is the insurrectionist view that appears to be driving the opposition to expanded background checks, for fear of a national firearms registry, for fear of a totalitarian federal government?  It's so crazy that even Justice Scalia, writing in _Heller_, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant the preposterousness of insurrectionism.  He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’
> 
> Dorf on Law: The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"
Click to expand...

Do you reject the notion that the second amendment was created for the purpose of resisting oppression?


----------



## EvMetro

Bob Blaylock said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of Britain's first acts of war against America was an attempt to confiscate our weapons.
> 
> The great men who wrote the Constitution clearly understand that retaining our weapons was essential in our ability to fight off the British, and to establish our independence from them.  As Mao Zedong would later observe, _“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”_  Mao, of course, wanted that power to be in the hands of his country's government, his country's Communist party.  The great men who founded this nation, and who wrote our Constitution, wanted this power to be in the hands, not of the government, but of the people, recognizing that this was the only way to preserve the freedoms that they fought so hard, and sacrificed so much, to establish.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I believe that right of keeping and bearing the tools to resist oppression was intended to permanent.


----------



## sparky

*Why was the second amendment written?*

*Cuz 'ol George was on a bender w/his army pals....and they wanted to blow off a few rounds ....*

Here's how George Washington ran up a $17,253 bar tab two days before signing the Constitution

By the end of the night, Washington's party drank: 54 bottle of Madeira wine, 60 bottle of Bordeaux wine, 8 bottles of old stock whiskey, 22 bottles of porter ale, 8 bottles of hard cider, 12 jugs of beer, and 7 large bowls of punch. The staff and musicians also drank 16 bottles of Bordeaux wine, 5 bottles of Madeira wine, and seven bowls of punch.


~S~


----------



## sparky

and he got the _band_ cocked too.....now THAT's a _party _leader!!!!  ~S~


----------



## boedicca

there4eyeM said:


> The Second Amendment was written by people who were aware of their recent and past history. Aware people today understand that as well as the fact that it is no longer 1776.




The 2A was written by people well versed in the long trail of human history and the enduring nature of humanity (strengths and frailties alike).  It was not a fad, bub.


----------



## sparky

Dibs George hit on Betsy when he wuz lit.....~S~


----------



## westwall

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.








To make sure that the PEOPLE have the ability to remove an illegitimate government.   As Jefferson wrote "it is oftimes necessary to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots."


----------



## miketx

there4eyeM said:


> The Second Amendment was written by people who were aware of their recent and past history. Aware people today understand that as well as the fact that it is no longer 1776.


If he were any more stupid, he’d have to be watered twice a week.


----------



## EvMetro

ABikerSailor said:


> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.


I am disgusted to see a fellow sailor and vet claim that ANY of our rights has become obsolete.  The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear the tools to fight oppression, and it is a right that many of our shipmates died fighting for.  Please honor the pow, mia, and all those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and honor them by living free.  "Live free, or die" is what we do to honor them.


----------



## rightwinger

Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state


----------



## cnm

> Why was the second amendment written?


So the slave states would be able to implement armed slave patrols in case the Federal Government refused to do so.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EvMetro said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am disgusted to see a fellow sailor and vet claim that ANY of our rights has become obsolete.  The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear the tools to fight oppression, and it is a right that many of our shipmates died fighting for.  Please honor the pow, mia, and all those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and honor them by living free.  "Live free, or die" is what we do to honor them.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess a firearm for self-defense, not to ‘fight oppression.’


----------



## EvMetro

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am disgusted to see a fellow sailor and vet claim that ANY of our rights has become obsolete.  The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear the tools to fight oppression, and it is a right that many of our shipmates died fighting for.  Please honor the pow, mia, and all those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and honor them by living free.  "Live free, or die" is what we do to honor them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess a firearm for self-defense, not to ‘fight oppression.’
Click to expand...


You are so wrong, here is what the second amendment says:

 "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 right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am disgusted to see a fellow sailor and vet claim that ANY of our rights has become obsolete.  The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear the tools to fight oppression, and it is a right that many of our shipmates died fighting for.  Please honor the pow, mia, and all those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and honor them by living free.  "Live free, or die" is what we do to honor them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess a firearm for self-defense, not to ‘fight oppression.’
Click to expand...


fighting oppression is self defense,,,
have you always been a fucking idiot or is this something  new youre trying???


----------



## EvMetro

progressive hunter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am disgusted to see a fellow sailor and vet claim that ANY of our rights has become obsolete.  The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear the tools to fight oppression, and it is a right that many of our shipmates died fighting for.  Please honor the pow, mia, and all those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and honor them by living free.  "Live free, or die" is what we do to honor them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess a firearm for self-defense, not to ‘fight oppression.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fighting oppression is self defense,,,
> have you always been a fucking idiot or is this something  new youre trying???
Click to expand...

Self defense is what a mugger or intruder will encounter, fighting oppression is what happens when a well regulated group of people like me show up armed to defend the border or repossess the government.


----------



## progressive hunter

EvMetro said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am disgusted to see a fellow sailor and vet claim that ANY of our rights has become obsolete.  The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear the tools to fight oppression, and it is a right that many of our shipmates died fighting for.  Please honor the pow, mia, and all those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and honor them by living free.  "Live free, or die" is what we do to honor them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess a firearm for self-defense, not to ‘fight oppression.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fighting oppression is self defense,,,
> have you always been a fucking idiot or is this something  new youre trying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense is what a mugger or intruder will encounter, fighting oppression is what happens when a well regulated group of people like me show up armed to defend the border or repossess the government.
Click to expand...



self defense is against anything that could bring me harm,,,and any government can bring harm including my own,,,


----------



## EvMetro

progressive hunter said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am disgusted to see a fellow sailor and vet claim that ANY of our rights has become obsolete.  The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear the tools to fight oppression, and it is a right that many of our shipmates died fighting for.  Please honor the pow, mia, and all those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and honor them by living free.  "Live free, or die" is what we do to honor them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess a firearm for self-defense, not to ‘fight oppression.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fighting oppression is self defense,,,
> have you always been a fucking idiot or is this something  new youre trying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self defense is what a mugger or intruder will encounter, fighting oppression is what happens when a well regulated group of people like me show up armed to defend the border or repossess the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> self defense is against anything that could bring me harm,,,and any government can bring harm including my own,,,
Click to expand...

I agree with that.


----------



## Yarddog

ABikerSailor said:


> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.





Maybe people were more responsible back in the 18th century, and they never could have foreseen that the population could become complete idiots. They were probably wise to believe that a well armed and responsible population, should have every tool in their disposal to stand up against a government gone tyranical.
Your opinions on what fire arms people should be allowed to have are fine I suppose but there are others who would have it be even less. They will say you have no reason anymore to go out and shoot a deer, and maybe we should be like Britain. What I do believe is that as long as our government feels that they do not have absolute power over the population, that is a very good thing. As they say, absolute power corrupts and I would hate to see them any more corrupt than they already are.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state








And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.  

Thanks for making that clear.


----------



## bodecea

fncceo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> we sure can't help pointing out that massive fire power doesn't always work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your massive firepower doesn't work ... then your firepower isn't massive enough.
> 
> _"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over"_ -- Fudd's 1st Law of Opposition
Click to expand...

Why didn't we use nukes in Viet Nam and Afghanistan then?


----------



## bodecea

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
Click to expand...

Well, your little militia isn't doing much, is it?


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am disgusted to see a fellow sailor and vet claim that ANY of our rights has become obsolete.  The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear the tools to fight oppression, and it is a right that many of our shipmates died fighting for.  Please honor the pow, mia, and all those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and honor them by living free.  "Live free, or die" is what we do to honor them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment gives us the right to possess a firearm for self-defense, not to ‘fight oppression.’
Click to expand...







Oh lookey, the pseudo intellectual chimes in, and is, as always, wrong.  There are hundreds of letters among the Founders dealing with the 2nd.

They ALL reference the ability to fight oppression you moronic twit.


----------



## westwall

bodecea said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> we sure can't help pointing out that massive fire power doesn't always work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your massive firepower doesn't work ... then your firepower isn't massive enough.
> 
> _"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over"_ -- Fudd's 1st Law of Opposition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't we use nukes in Viet Nam and Afghanistan then?
Click to expand...







Non sequitur much....idiot.


----------



## westwall

bodecea said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, your little militia isn't doing much, is it?
Click to expand...






Sure it is.  If it weren't for all of us armed folks, you would have been killed as a deviant in a camp long ago.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
Click to expand...

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
Click to expand...







Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition. 

Thanks for making that clear.


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, your little militia isn't doing much, is it?
Click to expand...



we arent like cuba or Venezuela yet so they are doing pretty good


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
Click to expand...



are you saying the government should provide our guns???


----------



## bodecea

westwall said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> we sure can't help pointing out that massive fire power doesn't always work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your massive firepower doesn't work ... then your firepower isn't massive enough.
> 
> _"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over"_ -- Fudd's 1st Law of Opposition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't we use nukes in Viet Nam and Afghanistan then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur much....idiot.
Click to expand...

Interesting.....    Non-answering for others now?


----------



## bodecea

westwall said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, your little militia isn't doing much, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  If it weren't for all of us armed folks, you would have been killed as a deviant in a camp long ago.
Click to expand...

Oh honey, when have you done anything to help this country besides being a keyboard kommando?


----------



## EvMetro

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
Click to expand...

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.


----------



## westwall

bodecea said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, your little militia isn't doing much, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  If it weren't for all of us armed folks, you would have been killed as a deviant in a camp long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh honey, when have you done anything to help this country besides being a keyboard kommando?
Click to expand...






More than you sweet cheeks.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
Click to expand...


That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place

We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows

The security of a free state depends on it


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
Click to expand...

LOL.......regulated means regulations


----------



## EvMetro

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
Click to expand...


There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.


----------



## EvMetro

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place
> 
> We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows
> 
> The security of a free state depends on it
Click to expand...

It is pretty amazing how many retired and ex military and cops there are in our country who are trained and armed.  We outnumber the active ones by far.


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
Click to expand...


regulated means regulations
Learn English




*regulation*
[ reg-yuh-ley-shuhn ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR regulation ON THESAURUS.COM
*noun*
a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
*the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.*


----------



## EvMetro

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
Click to expand...

Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
Click to expand...

Regulated is synonymous with regulation

General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
Click to expand...



thats one meaning,,,


----------



## EvMetro

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing
Click to expand...

Fortunately, there are people who are familiar with the language of the period:

The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Sure, there are ignorant folks who think the founders would create a  ignorant oxymoron by trying to mix "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed", but there aren't enough of them to erase the truth.


----------



## EvMetro

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats one meaning,,,
Click to expand...


His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately, there are people who are familiar with the language of the period:
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Sure, there are ignorant folks who think the founders would create a  ignorant oxymoron by trying to mix "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed", but there aren't enough of them to erase the truth.
Click to expand...

Exactly....Well regulated, in this usage means precision 

A bunch of random gun owners running around shooting at shadows is not  precision
Precision would mean trained, well equipped, following orders


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats one meaning,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
Click to expand...


Regulated = Regulations

Learn English


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats one meaning,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Learn English
Click to expand...


got a link???


----------



## Rye Catcher

Answer to the OP:

https://www.history.com/news/bill-of-rights-constitution-first-10-amendments-james-madison


----------



## EvMetro

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats one meaning,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Learn English
Click to expand...

Yes, it is remarkable how a fake narrative can be engineered with information that is taken or presented out of context.  I can go back through your posts and copy n paste enough words that you have written to arrange them in a new order to show you saying almost anything.  The fake news media can easily assemble real facts out of their full and correct context to engineer any political narrative they want as well.  Your dishonest stunt of pimping the wrong context after being caught "red" handed is juvenille, and it highlights how weak youre argument is.  

It sucks how weak lefties are when they debate.  What I wouldn't do to debate with a commie who doesn't fold up like a lawn chair when pressed.


----------



## Rye Catcher

there4eyeM said:


> The Second Amendment was written by people who were aware of their recent and past history. Aware people today understand that as well as the fact that it is no longer 1776.



Some people.  Most people understand that the pen is mightier than the gun.  The First A. is more powerful against government "getting out of  control" than a disorganized group of citizens armed with guns standing up to a 21st Century Military force.

And no, the US Military will not in mass join in an insurrection to overthrow an out of control government.  That is why the Framers added the power of Impeachment, to protect and defend COTUS.


----------



## Gdjjr

To the OT- because they wanted to make it clear the gov't role in life is severely limited- of course lawyers have bastardized the meaning of words which I don't think the founders thought the people would be so dumbed down they couldn't read simple English-


----------



## Rye Catcher

EvMetro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
Click to expand...


So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.

Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.


----------



## Polishprince

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.




Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.

The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.

OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats one meaning,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is remarkable how a fake narrative can be engineered with information that is taken or presented out of context.  I can go back through your posts and copy n paste enough words that you have written to arrange them in a new order to show you saying almost anything.  The fake news media can easily assemble real facts out of their full and correct context to engineer any political narrative they want as well.  Your dishonest stunt of pimping the wrong context after being caught "red" handed is juvenille, and it highlights how weak youre argument is.
> 
> It sucks how weak lefties are when they debate.  What I wouldn't do to debate with a commie who doesn't fold up like a lawn chair when pressed.
Click to expand...


Regulated = Regulations


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats one meaning,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is remarkable how a fake narrative can be engineered with information that is taken or presented out of context.  I can go back through your posts and copy n paste enough words that you have written to arrange them in a new order to show you saying almost anything.  The fake news media can easily assemble real facts out of their full and correct context to engineer any political narrative they want as well.  Your dishonest stunt of pimping the wrong context after being caught "red" handed is juvenille, and it highlights how weak youre argument is.
> 
> It sucks how weak lefties are when they debate.  What I wouldn't do to debate with a commie who doesn't fold up like a lawn chair when pressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
Click to expand...



got a link???


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.
> 
> OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.
Click to expand...


The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
That is what happened in the Revolutionary War


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats one meaning,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is remarkable how a fake narrative can be engineered with information that is taken or presented out of context.  I can go back through your posts and copy n paste enough words that you have written to arrange them in a new order to show you saying almost anything.  The fake news media can easily assemble real facts out of their full and correct context to engineer any political narrative they want as well.  Your dishonest stunt of pimping the wrong context after being caught "red" handed is juvenille, and it highlights how weak youre argument is.
> 
> It sucks how weak lefties are when they debate.  What I wouldn't do to debate with a commie who doesn't fold up like a lawn chair when pressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> got a link???
Click to expand...


see post #90


----------



## EvMetro

Rye Catcher said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?


----------



## EvMetro

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is remarkable how a fake narrative can be engineered with information that is taken or presented out of context.  I can go back through your posts and copy n paste enough words that you have written to arrange them in a new order to show you saying almost anything.  The fake news media can easily assemble real facts out of their full and correct context to engineer any political narrative they want as well.  Your dishonest stunt of pimping the wrong context after being caught "red" handed is juvenille, and it highlights how weak youre argument is.
> 
> It sucks how weak lefties are when they debate.  What I wouldn't do to debate with a commie who doesn't fold up like a lawn chair when pressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> got a link???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> see post #90
Click to expand...

But pretend we never saw #94, right?


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is remarkable how a fake narrative can be engineered with information that is taken or presented out of context.  I can go back through your posts and copy n paste enough words that you have written to arrange them in a new order to show you saying almost anything.  The fake news media can easily assemble real facts out of their full and correct context to engineer any political narrative they want as well.  Your dishonest stunt of pimping the wrong context after being caught "red" handed is juvenille, and it highlights how weak youre argument is.
> 
> It sucks how weak lefties are when they debate.  What I wouldn't do to debate with a commie who doesn't fold up like a lawn chair when pressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> got a link???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> see post #90
Click to expand...



thats a synonym,,other definitions are to make regular which means the government should supply weapons to all able bodied men,,,


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats one meaning,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is remarkable how a fake narrative can be engineered with information that is taken or presented out of context.  I can go back through your posts and copy n paste enough words that you have written to arrange them in a new order to show you saying almost anything.  The fake news media can easily assemble real facts out of their full and correct context to engineer any political narrative they want as well.  Your dishonest stunt of pimping the wrong context after being caught "red" handed is juvenille, and it highlights how weak youre argument is.
> 
> It sucks how weak lefties are when they debate.  What I wouldn't do to debate with a commie who doesn't fold up like a lawn chair when pressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
Click to expand...



What kind of regulations should be imposed upon Militias that people decide to establish?

The liberal thought that people should get organized into militia and spend their weekends in formation out in the woods is interesting, but  not enough details are provided on what they exactly want the people to do


----------



## progressive hunter

Polishprince said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats one meaning,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His dishonest intentions are painfully obvious when he cherry picks the only meaning that fits his commie agenda and presents it as if it is the only context.   Even when it is clear that we can see through the commie lies, he will feel no shame.  It's like how chickens can look you straight in the eye as they shit without experiencing shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is remarkable how a fake narrative can be engineered with information that is taken or presented out of context.  I can go back through your posts and copy n paste enough words that you have written to arrange them in a new order to show you saying almost anything.  The fake news media can easily assemble real facts out of their full and correct context to engineer any political narrative they want as well.  Your dishonest stunt of pimping the wrong context after being caught "red" handed is juvenille, and it highlights how weak youre argument is.
> 
> It sucks how weak lefties are when they debate.  What I wouldn't do to debate with a commie who doesn't fold up like a lawn chair when pressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulated = Regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of regulations should be imposed upon Militias that people decide to establish?
> 
> The liberal thought that people should get organized into militia and spend their weekends in formation out in the woods is interesting, but  not enough details are provided on what they exactly want the people to do
Click to expand...



we can start with the government providing arms to all able bodied men to keep in their homes ready for use,,,


----------



## Rye Catcher

EvMetro said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
Click to expand...


Any way you slice it, well regulated means a militia you can depend on. In the 18th century that meant militias that were trained, had an organized structure, were registered as members of the militia and had a record of the arms they possessed


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any way you slice it, well regulated means a militia you can depend on. In the 18th century that meant militias that were trained, had an organized structure, were registered as members of the militia and had a record of the arms they possessed
Click to expand...



got a link???
cause that sounds like bullshit,,,


----------



## toobfreak

Bo Didleysquat said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
Click to expand...


Bosquat Didleyfuck, first in with arms raised ready to surrender.  He would have been the first to surrender to the British and turn in Geo Washington over for a loaf of bread.


----------



## EvMetro

rightwinger said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.
> 
> OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
> They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
> That is what happened in the Revolutionary War
Click to expand...

Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressed "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.

It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.
> 
> OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
> They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
> That is what happened in the Revolutionary War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.
> 
> It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...


Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.
> 
> OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
> They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
> That is what happened in the Revolutionary War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.
> 
> It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled
Click to expand...



compared to what you ignore hes spot on,,,and youre a liar and an idiot,,


----------



## EvMetro

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any way you slice it, well regulated means a militia you can depend on. In the 18th century that meant militias that were trained, had an organized structure, were registered as members of the militia and had a record of the arms they possessed
Click to expand...

This is great!  They had food stamps and section 8 housing back in those days (general welfare) AND gun control laws!  They must have been trying to create a commie country, right?  How many people registered their guns to be eligible for an inevitable gun confiscation?  I bet that notion really went over well back in those days...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.



Without reading the entire thread, let us bear in mind that James Madison is the father of the Constitution and the primary author of the Second Amendment.  He would be your best authority.

According to Madison:

"_Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of._"  James Madison, _Federalist No. 46_, January 29, 1788


Much can be debated, but why did Madison point out that Americans had an advantage of being armed over all other nations?  Perhaps when Madison became president and he nominated Joseph Story to the United States Supreme Court the answer becomes irrefutable.  As Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Story wrote:

"_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the Liberties of a Republic; since it offers a *strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them*_."
- Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833

A palladium is a safeguard, so the Right to keep and bear Arms is a safeguard of the Liberties of a Republic.  The Bill of Rights codified the *unalienable* Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, so the Right to keep and bear Arms exists to insure the security of a free state and, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ABikerSailor said:


> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.




The United States is a Republic, so it is a damn good thing that lefties don't get to decide the value of my life and / or come up with an arbitrary number of bullets that I might have in order to properly defend myself with.

Have you ever gotten out of bed in the middle of the night, confronted by multiple intruders and forced to spring into action?  My neighbor did:

Video shows woman shoot at burglars in home invasion - CNN Video

So, you would try and insure the security of a free state with ten rounds when it's clear you might not be able to defend your own home with that few rounds?  My personal safety, according to the courts, is my responsibility.  If you feel safe with nine rounds, go with God.  As for me, I might carry more like 109 bullets at a time.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Rye Catcher said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a "commie".  Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.
> 
> If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
> Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.
> 
> What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide.  It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:
> 
> The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rye Catcher

Rye Catcher said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a "commie".  Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.
> 
> If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
> Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.
> 
> What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide.  It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:
> 
> The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.

If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.

What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:

The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a "commie".  Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.
> 
> If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
> Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.
> 
> What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide.  It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:
> 
> The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You are just plain wrong on every level.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a "commie".  Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.
> 
> If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
> Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.
> 
> What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide.  It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:
> 
> The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just plain wrong on every level.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a "commie".  Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.
> 
> If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
> Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.
> 
> What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide.  It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:
> 
> The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just plain wrong on every level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


Okay...

*10 U.S.C. § 311 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 10. Armed Forces § 311. Militia:  composition and classes*

(a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)  The classes of the militia are--

(1)  the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

(2)  the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Rather than argue the most obvious objections you are about to lob at me, I decided not to reinvent the wheel.  Here is your response:

What is the "Militia"? And Who are "The People"? | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

In addition, the earliest courts, including the United States Supreme Court had the opportunity to over-rule the state courts.  They didn't. So, let's review some of the more important ones:

According to Wikipedia:


"_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:


“_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." T*he right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia*, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. *Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right*, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_”  Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute. He does not derive it from the State government.*  It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.  *A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“_The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States._

_..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_.   United States v. Cruikshank  92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.  It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is *absolute*.  By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life.  That is another way of saying that the Right is an *unalienable* Right.  It is above the reach of the government.

Final Note:  IF the militia is limited as per my link to any certain age group, that was nullified by The Civil Rights Act of 1964 because firearms have been legally connected to Interstate Commerce.  And Title II of that Act outlaws age discrimination in areas of Interstate Commerce.  

Regardless of which legal defense I'm forced to advocate for, you are wrong on every level.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
Click to expand...








Not when it was written it didn't.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place
> 
> We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows
> 
> The security of a free state depends on it
Click to expand...






Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile.  The Founders understood that.  The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt.   Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.

That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Rye Catcher said:


> And no, the US Military will not in mass join in an insurrection to overthrow an out of control government.



  Considering that the military is drawn from the same population against which an out-of-control government might try to use them; I think it's a safe bet that if it ever comes to that, that the bulk of the military population would side with the people rather than with the government.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *regulation*
> [ reg-yuh-ley-shuhn ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR regulation ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
> *the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.*
Click to expand...







Well regulated, at the time the 2nd was written, meant "in good working order "

Learn the context of the time.


----------



## EvMetro

Rye Catcher said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a "commie".  Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.
> 
> If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
> Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.
> 
> What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide.  It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:
> 
> The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.
> 
> If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
> Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.
> 
> What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:
> 
> The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.
Click to expand...

Commies resent being called commies, so they hide behind many other political identifying terms like progressive, democrat, socialist, republican, liberal, libertarian,  lefty, you name it.  Regardless of what name commies hide behind, I can still spot commies faster than Mccarthy did.

BTW, I never claimed that a well regulated militia is encumbered with regulation.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing
Click to expand...






Not when you know the context of the times.  That's why you ignore that.   So you can lie.


----------



## westwall

Rye Catcher said:


> Answer to the OP:
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/bill-of-rights-constitution-first-10-amendments-james-madison








You were already pwned.  Time for you to leave.


----------



## westwall

Rye Catcher said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was written by people who were aware of their recent and past history. Aware people today understand that as well as the fact that it is no longer 1776.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people.  Most people understand that the pen is mightier than the gun.  The First A. is more powerful against government "getting out of  control" than a disorganized group of citizens armed with guns standing up to a 21st Century Military force.
> 
> And no, the US Military will not in mass join in an insurrection to overthrow an out of control government.  That is why the Framers added the power of Impeachment, to protect and defend COTUS.
Click to expand...








The pen is mightier only when it has a gun to back it up.  Moron.


----------



## OldLady

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.
> 
> OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
> They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
> That is what happened in the Revolutionary War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.
> 
> It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled
Click to expand...







It's not obscure.  It is the meaning of the term at the time.  Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.

I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.


----------



## EvMetro

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you know the context of the times.  That's why you ignore that.   So you can lie.
Click to expand...

Rightwinger certainly does know the period correct meaning of "well regulated",  he isn't ignorant there,  but he is pretty ignorant to think nobody sees how he avoids discussion of it.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

toobfreak said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bosquat Didleyfuck, first in with arms raised ready to surrender.  He would have been the first to surrender to the British and turn in Geo Washington over for a loaf of bread.
Click to expand...

Oh I've got my guns, but the point is, the public surrendered long ago, and is hell bent on sticking to it.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.
> 
> OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
> They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
> That is what happened in the Revolutionary War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.
> 
> It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not obscure.  It is the meaning of the term at the time.  Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.
> 
> I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.
Click to expand...

They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.
> 
> OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
> They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
> That is what happened in the Revolutionary War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.
> 
> It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not obscure.  It is the meaning of the term at the time.  Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.
> 
> I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.
Click to expand...







Yes, government officials,  the schools, politicians, and of course,  the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population. 

They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though.  That woke a lot of people up.


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.
> 
> OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
> They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
> That is what happened in the Revolutionary War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.
> 
> It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> compared to what you ignore hes spot on,,,and youre a liar and an idiot,,
Click to expand...


He is ignorant of the structure of our Colonial Militias.....so are you


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wrong ^^^.  The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia.  Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16.  No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
> 
> Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any way you slice it, well regulated means a militia you can depend on. In the 18th century that meant militias that were trained, had an organized structure, were registered as members of the militia and had a record of the arms they possessed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is great!  They had food stamps and section 8 housing back in those days (general welfare) AND gun control laws!  They must have been trying to create a commie country, right?  How many people registered their guns to be eligible for an inevitable gun confiscation?  I bet that notion really went over well back in those days...
Click to expand...


General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People

Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8


----------



## rightwinger

EvMetro said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you know the context of the times.  That's why you ignore that.   So you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rightwinger certainly does know the period correct meaning of "well regulated",  he isn't ignorant there,  but he is pretty ignorant to think nobody sees how he avoids discussion of it.
Click to expand...

You don’t understand the English Language


----------



## Porter Rockwell

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place
> 
> We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows
> 
> The security of a free state depends on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile.  The Founders understood that.  The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt.   Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.
> 
> That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Click to expand...



Well, I guess you're right about one thing.  Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes.  Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "_regulation_" issue:

Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase.  One of those struck a chord with me:

"_It referred to the property of something being in proper working order_."

When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias.  Then, just as today, it was like herding cats.  In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared.  But, it wasn't happening.  The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.

I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia.  IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29.  Hamilton stated:

 "_If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.._."

Look at the wording carefully.  *WHAT* is being regulated?  It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated.  The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready.  Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain.  Hamilton went on:

"_By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government_."

So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state.  Continuing on, Hamilton says:

 "_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.  A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.  It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

 To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.  It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.  To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.

*Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_..."


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you know the context of the times.  That's why you ignore that.   So you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rightwinger certainly does know the period correct meaning of "well regulated",  he isn't ignorant there,  but he is pretty ignorant to think nobody sees how he avoids discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand the English Language
Click to expand...






Actually , we do.  You on the other hand try and twist and pervert to suit your desire for power.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
Click to expand...


  Your fav CNN disagrees....
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf


----------



## Porter Rockwell

HereWeGoAgain said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fav CNN disagrees....
> https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Click to expand...



Add this for fun:


----------



## ABikerSailor

Porter Rockwell said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is a Republic, so it is a damn good thing that lefties don't get to decide the value of my life and / or come up with an arbitrary number of bullets that I might have in order to properly defend myself with.
> 
> Have you ever gotten out of bed in the middle of the night, confronted by multiple intruders and forced to spring into action?  My neighbor did:
> 
> Video shows woman shoot at burglars in home invasion - CNN Video
> 
> So, you would try and insure the security of a free state with ten rounds when it's clear you might not be able to defend your own home with that few rounds?  My personal safety, according to the courts, is my responsibility.  If you feel safe with nine rounds, go with God.  As for me, I might carry more like 109 bullets at a time.
Click to expand...


Yes, I would fee safe having a handgun with only 10 rounds in it.  Why?  Because while I have heard of multiple burglars (2-4), I have never heard of a house being robbed by more people than that.  And, even if it were 4 people invading my house, I have several advantages in already knowing the choke points and where the best cover is in my house, but I also qualified as a Sharpshooter while serving on the Security Force in Newport RI.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Porter Rockwell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place
> 
> We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows
> 
> The security of a free state depends on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile.  The Founders understood that.  The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt.   Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.
> 
> That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're right about one thing.  Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes.  Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "_regulation_" issue:
> 
> Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase.  One of those struck a chord with me:
> 
> "_It referred to the property of something being in proper working order_."
> 
> When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias.  Then, just as today, it was like herding cats.  In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared.  But, it wasn't happening.  The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.
> 
> I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia.  IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29.  Hamilton stated:
> 
> "_If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.._."
> 
> Look at the wording carefully.  *WHAT* is being regulated?  It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated.  The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready.  Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain.  Hamilton went on:
> 
> "_By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government_."
> 
> So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state.  Continuing on, Hamilton says:
> 
> "_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.  A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.  It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
> 
> To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.  It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.  To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.
> 
> *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_..."
Click to expand...


Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments.   The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.


----------



## Gdjjr

Rye Catcher said:


> opinion only an opinion.


shall not be infringed is not an opinion.


----------



## Blues Man

ABikerSailor said:


> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.


You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......regulated means regulations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *regulation*
> [ reg-yuh-ley-shuhn ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR regulation ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
> *the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.*
Click to expand...

The term well regulated in the vernacular of the time did not mean controlled by the government 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man

rightwinger said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations."  I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regulated means regulations
> Learn English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies.  Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regulated is synonymous with regulation
> 
> General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately, there are people who are familiar with the language of the period:
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Sure, there are ignorant folks who think the founders would create a  ignorant oxymoron by trying to mix "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed", but there aren't enough of them to erase the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly....Well regulated, in this usage means precision
> 
> A bunch of random gun owners running around shooting at shadows is not  precision
> Precision would mean trained, well equipped, following orders
Click to expand...

Not necessarily the orders of the government

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed.   Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.
> 
> OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
> They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
> That is what happened in the Revolutionary War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.
> 
> It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> compared to what you ignore hes spot on,,,and youre a liar and an idiot,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is ignorant of the structure of our Colonial Militias.....so are you
Click to expand...

And yet you won't link to a source that backs up your claim 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is a Republic, so it is a damn good thing that lefties don't get to decide the value of my life and / or come up with an arbitrary number of bullets that I might have in order to properly defend myself with.
> 
> Have you ever gotten out of bed in the middle of the night, confronted by multiple intruders and forced to spring into action?  My neighbor did:
> 
> Video shows woman shoot at burglars in home invasion - CNN Video
> 
> So, you would try and insure the security of a free state with ten rounds when it's clear you might not be able to defend your own home with that few rounds?  My personal safety, according to the courts, is my responsibility.  If you feel safe with nine rounds, go with God.  As for me, I might carry more like 109 bullets at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I would fee safe having a handgun with only 10 rounds in it.  Why?  Because while I have heard of multiple burglars (2-4), I have never heard of a house being robbed by more people than that.  And, even if it were 4 people invading my house, I have several advantages in already knowing the choke points and where the best cover is in my house, but I also qualified as a Sharpshooter while serving on the Security Force in Newport RI.
Click to expand...

Good for you but it's not your place to tell others what gun or how much ammo they should use

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gdjjr

rightwinger said:


> General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People


Actually, it's general Welfare- capitalized makes it a noun- general isn't capitalized- a noun is a person, place or thing.


----------



## Gdjjr

ABikerSailor said:


> Yes, I would fee safe having a handgun with only 10 rounds in it. Why? Because while I have heard of multiple burglars (2-4), I have never heard of a house being robbed by more people than that. And, even if it were 4 people invading my house, I have several advantages in already knowing the choke points and where the best cover is in my house, but I also qualified as a Sharpshooter while serving on the Security Force in Newport RI.


You have the right to choose for yourself and yourself only- others you don't have the right, nor was the gov't granted that power-


----------



## fncceo

rightwinger said:


> General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People
> 
> Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8



Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in _*everyone's* _best interest.


----------



## rightwinger

Gdjjr said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> opinion only an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> shall not be infringed is not an opinion.
Click to expand...

Neither are well regulated militias


----------



## rightwinger

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People
> 
> Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in _*everyone's* _best interest.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t have to be
Only the country as a whole


----------



## fncceo

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People
> 
> Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in _*everyone's* _best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn’t have to be
> Only the country as a whole
Click to expand...


That's where this whole Democracy thing comes in.  Some people believe they will be helped by governmental assistance, others believe they will be devastated by it.  Most will be affected in some way in which they won't care enough about to feel the need to participate in the discussion.

So, the people who they will benefit will vote for it, the people who believe they will hurt will vote against it, and the rest of us will stay home or follow their friends without really thinking.

Then, there will be the unintended consequences that people either didn't recognize, or deliberately ignored, that make the effects of the government program completely different than originally stated.

It's not a perfect way to run the commonweal, but it's better than any alternatives to date.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ABikerSailor said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is a Republic, so it is a damn good thing that lefties don't get to decide the value of my life and / or come up with an arbitrary number of bullets that I might have in order to properly defend myself with.
> 
> Have you ever gotten out of bed in the middle of the night, confronted by multiple intruders and forced to spring into action?  My neighbor did:
> 
> Video shows woman shoot at burglars in home invasion - CNN Video
> 
> So, you would try and insure the security of a free state with ten rounds when it's clear you might not be able to defend your own home with that few rounds?  My personal safety, according to the courts, is my responsibility.  If you feel safe with nine rounds, go with God.  As for me, I might carry more like 109 bullets at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I would fee safe having a handgun with only 10 rounds in it.  Why?  Because while I have heard of multiple burglars (2-4), I have never heard of a house being robbed by more people than that.  And, even if it were 4 people invading my house, I have several advantages in already knowing the choke points and where the best cover is in my house, but I also qualified as a Sharpshooter while serving on the Security Force in Newport RI.
Click to expand...



OMG.  Another phony Special Forces wannabe with no common sense.  My neighbor had none of that training; it was dark; if you had any common sense, you would realize that life and death scenarios never play out the way you intend:


Count the number of rounds expended on a single bad guy WITHOUT a gun.  Those shots are being fired by *experienced* LEOs.

Don't ever pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> That is why we need them well regulated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place
> 
> We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows
> 
> The security of a free state depends on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile.  The Founders understood that.  The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt.   Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.
> 
> That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're right about one thing.  Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes.  Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "_regulation_" issue:
> 
> Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase.  One of those struck a chord with me:
> 
> "_It referred to the property of something being in proper working order_."
> 
> When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias.  Then, just as today, it was like herding cats.  In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared.  But, it wasn't happening.  The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.
> 
> I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia.  IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29.  Hamilton stated:
> 
> "_If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.._."
> 
> Look at the wording carefully.  *WHAT* is being regulated?  It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated.  The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready.  Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain.  Hamilton went on:
> 
> "_By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government_."
> 
> So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state.  Continuing on, Hamilton says:
> 
> "_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.  A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.  It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
> 
> To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.  It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.  To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.
> 
> *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments.   The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.
Click to expand...


The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.


----------



## rightwinger

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People
> 
> Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in _*everyone's* _best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn’t have to be
> Only the country as a whole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where this whole Democracy thing comes in.  Some people believe they will be helped by governmental assistance, others believe they will be devastated by it.  Most will be affected in some way in which they won't care enough about to feel the need to participate in the discussion.
> 
> So, the people who they will benefit will vote for it, the people who believe they will hurt will vote against it, and the rest of us will stay home or follow their friends without really thinking.
> 
> Then, there will be the unintended consequences that people either didn't recognize, or deliberately ignored, that make the effects of the government program completely different than originally stated.
> 
> It's not a perfect way to run the commonweal, but it's better than any alternatives to date.
Click to expand...

Actually, people in modern democracies do not want to see people suffering

Only asshole conservatives


----------



## Porter Rockwell

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People
> 
> Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in _*everyone's* _best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn’t have to be
> Only the country as a whole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where this whole Democracy thing comes in.  Some people believe they will be helped by governmental assistance, others believe they will be devastated by it.  Most will be affected in some way in which they won't care enough about to feel the need to participate in the discussion.
> 
> So, the people who they will benefit will vote for it, the people who believe they will hurt will vote against it, and the rest of us will stay home or follow their friends without really thinking.
> 
> Then, there will be the unintended consequences that people either didn't recognize, or deliberately ignored, that make the effects of the government program completely different than originally stated.
> 
> It's not a perfect way to run the commonweal, but it's better than any alternatives to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, people in modern democracies do not want to see people suffering
> 
> Only asshole conservatives
Click to expand...



So, are you saying democrats want to see "_asshole conservatives_" suffer?


----------



## rightwinger

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place
> 
> We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows
> 
> The security of a free state depends on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile.  The Founders understood that.  The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt.   Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.
> 
> That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're right about one thing.  Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes.  Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "_regulation_" issue:
> 
> Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase.  One of those struck a chord with me:
> 
> "_It referred to the property of something being in proper working order_."
> 
> When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias.  Then, just as today, it was like herding cats.  In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared.  But, it wasn't happening.  The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.
> 
> I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia.  IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29.  Hamilton stated:
> 
> "_If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.._."
> 
> Look at the wording carefully.  *WHAT* is being regulated?  It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated.  The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready.  Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain.  Hamilton went on:
> 
> "_By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government_."
> 
> So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state.  Continuing on, Hamilton says:
> 
> "_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.  A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.  It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
> 
> To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.  It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.  To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.
> 
> *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments.   The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
Click to expand...





*“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## fncceo

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People
> 
> Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in _*everyone's* _best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn’t have to be
> Only the country as a whole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where this whole Democracy thing comes in.  Some people believe they will be helped by governmental assistance, others believe they will be devastated by it.  Most will be affected in some way in which they won't care enough about to feel the need to participate in the discussion.
> 
> So, the people who they will benefit will vote for it, the people who believe they will hurt will vote against it, and the rest of us will stay home or follow their friends without really thinking.
> 
> Then, there will be the unintended consequences that people either didn't recognize, or deliberately ignored, that make the effects of the government program completely different than originally stated.
> 
> It's not a perfect way to run the commonweal, but it's better than any alternatives to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, people in modern democracies do not want to see people suffering
> 
> Only asshole conservatives
Click to expand...


Everyone says they don't want to see anyone suffering when asked, even arsehole conservatives.

But, almost no one will give up their rec room, their car, or their nice lawn to do anything about it.

We will only help others when it doesn't entail any personal sacrifice for ourselves.

That's not a bad thing, that's just survival instinct.  You don't save anyone by ensuring your own destruction.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

rightwinger said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place
> 
> We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows
> 
> The security of a free state depends on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile.  The Founders understood that.  The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt.   Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.
> 
> That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're right about one thing.  Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes.  Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "_regulation_" issue:
> 
> Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase.  One of those struck a chord with me:
> 
> "_It referred to the property of something being in proper working order_."
> 
> When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias.  Then, just as today, it was like herding cats.  In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared.  But, it wasn't happening.  The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.
> 
> I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia.  IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29.  Hamilton stated:
> 
> "_If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.._."
> 
> Look at the wording carefully.  *WHAT* is being regulated?  It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated.  The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready.  Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain.  Hamilton went on:
> 
> "_By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government_."
> 
> So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state.  Continuing on, Hamilton says:
> 
> "_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.  A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.  It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
> 
> To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.  It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.  To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.
> 
> *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments.   The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
Click to expand...


Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

*"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*

*FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:

*Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## rightwinger

Porter Rockwell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile.  The Founders understood that.  The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt.   Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.
> 
> That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're right about one thing.  Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes.  Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "_regulation_" issue:
> 
> Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase.  One of those struck a chord with me:
> 
> "_It referred to the property of something being in proper working order_."
> 
> When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias.  Then, just as today, it was like herding cats.  In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared.  But, it wasn't happening.  The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.
> 
> I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia.  IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29.  Hamilton stated:
> 
> "_If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.._."
> 
> Look at the wording carefully.  *WHAT* is being regulated?  It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated.  The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready.  Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain.  Hamilton went on:
> 
> "_By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government_."
> 
> So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state.  Continuing on, Hamilton says:
> 
> "_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.  A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.  It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
> 
> To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.  It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.  To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.
> 
> *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments.   The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
Click to expand...


In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're right about one thing.  Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes.  Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "_regulation_" issue:
> 
> Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase.  One of those struck a chord with me:
> 
> "_It referred to the property of something being in proper working order_."
> 
> When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias.  Then, just as today, it was like herding cats.  In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared.  But, it wasn't happening.  The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.
> 
> I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia.  IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29.  Hamilton stated:
> 
> "_If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.._."
> 
> Look at the wording carefully.  *WHAT* is being regulated?  It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated.  The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready.  Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain.  Hamilton went on:
> 
> "_By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government_."
> 
> So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state.  Continuing on, Hamilton says:
> 
> "_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.  A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.  It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
> 
> To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.  It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.  To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.
> 
> *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments.   The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
Click to expand...







Exactly.   The Founders set up our system to be adversarial.   That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.

They were brilliant men.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments.   The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   The Founders set up our system to be adversarial.   That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.
> 
> They were brilliant men.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed


----------



## Porter Rockwell

rightwinger said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're right about one thing.  Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes.  Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "_regulation_" issue:
> 
> Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase.  One of those struck a chord with me:
> 
> "_It referred to the property of something being in proper working order_."
> 
> When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias.  Then, just as today, it was like herding cats.  In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared.  But, it wasn't happening.  The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.
> 
> I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia.  IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29.  Hamilton stated:
> 
> "_If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.._."
> 
> Look at the wording carefully.  *WHAT* is being regulated?  It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated.  The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready.  Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain.  Hamilton went on:
> 
> "_By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government_."
> 
> So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state.  Continuing on, Hamilton says:
> 
> "_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.  A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.  It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
> 
> To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.  It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.  To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.
> 
> *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments.   The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights and the concept of *unalienable* Rights - Rights that are so sacred that they transcend government and are above the law is beyond the legitimate bounds of government.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   The Founders set up our system to be adversarial.   That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.
> 
> They were brilliant men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed
Click to expand...


Shall not be infringed is not a broad term.  The Right of the People is equally unequivocal in its meaning.


----------



## Gdjjr

rightwinger said:


> Only the country as a whole


As in everybody's-


----------



## rightwinger

Porter Rockwell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments.   The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights and the concept of *unalienable* Rights - Rights that are so sacred that they transcend government and are above the law is beyond the legitimate bounds of government.
Click to expand...


Our Constitution and laws give people more rights than the Bible does


----------



## rightwinger

Porter Rockwell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   The Founders set up our system to be adversarial.   That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.
> 
> They were brilliant men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is not a broad term.  The Right of the People is equally unequivocal in its meaning.
Click to expand...



Open to interpretation. Nobody has unlimited arms rights
You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile
You cannot fire your weapon any time or any place you want


----------



## Gdjjr

rightwinger said:


> Our Constitution and laws give people more rights than the Bible does


The bible has nothing to do with our rights, which CANNOT be given, or taken- when either happens they become privilege or grants- rights are inherent, defined by the exercising of- when no harm is committed there is no foul to be punished- laws are intended to punish for criminal action not enriching the enFORCErs or the writers of the laws and should not restrict a person's rights based on _what if, _which is nothing more than mind reading based on a statistic which can be skewed to justify/excuse bad behavior by bad actors and punish non-criminals.


----------



## Gdjjr

rightwinger said:


> Open to interpretation. Nobody has unlimited arms rights
> You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile
> You cannot fire your weapon any time or any place you want


Interpretation cannot exist without definition- words mean things- shall not be infringed leaves no wiggle room- anything can be bought if one has the resources (see the District of Criminals for evidence)- a weapon can be fired anytime one wants- that some fear it *might* (and there is the possibility it could) harm another- BUT, if it doesn't why is it a criminal action?


----------



## Rye Catcher

Gdjjr said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> opinion only an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> shall not be infringed is not an opinion.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  In fact gun ownership and possession has been regulated for centuries.


----------



## Gdjjr

Rye Catcher said:


> Yes it is. In fact gun ownership and possession has been regulated for centuries.


opinions are like asses- everyone has one- some smell worse than others and they, nor yours, changes the words or their meaning- but, I tell you what, hero, come and take it- but, don't bring your choice of fire arm and see how far you get-


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   The Founders set up our system to be adversarial.   That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.
> 
> They were brilliant men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed
Click to expand...





Indeed it is, and yet the Bill of Rights are very precise.   The only way to narrow their meaning, and intent, is via intentional misinterpretation, and outright denying the actual meanings of the words they very carefully wrote the Bill of Rights with.

The 2nd is an excellent example of their forethought,  and brilliance, for if they had written it poorly, the guns would already be gone, and this country would be the dictatorial hell hole you so desire.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention.  Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.
> 
> Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution.  Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:
> 
> "..._on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."
> 
> Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
> 
> I understand.  When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them.  The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with.  And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights and the concept of *unalienable* Rights - Rights that are so sacred that they transcend government and are above the law is beyond the legitimate bounds of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Constitution and laws give people more rights than the Bible does
Click to expand...







No, they merely specify what those Rights are that the government can't screw with.  The Bill of Rights gives nothing.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   The Founders set up our system to be adversarial.   That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.
> 
> They were brilliant men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is not a broad term.  The Right of the People is equally unequivocal in its meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Open to interpretation. Nobody has unlimited arms rights
> You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile
> You cannot fire your weapon any time or any place you want
Click to expand...






Not open.  The laws we have now violate the COTUS and BOR.  The PEOPLE foolishly allowed those laws to remain.


----------



## westwall

Rye Catcher said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> opinion only an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> shall not be infringed is not an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  In fact gun ownership and possession has been regulated for centuries.
Click to expand...






Illegally.  And in this country at the Federal level only from the 1930's.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Blues Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.


----------



## westwall

Rye Catcher said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
Click to expand...






Wow,  you're finally getting it.  Keep bad people off the streets.  

Exactly what we have been saying for decades. Nice to see you catching up.


----------



## Gdjjr

Rye Catcher said:


> LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.


You're using thought policing- it's after 1984- if one has not committed a criminal offense making him a criminal by law is immoral- real criminal offenses are immoral- ALL of them, including thought policing- what if is used to justify ignorance and control of the other ignorant- justify is an excuse, an excuse is an attempt to justify, usually lame- reason is a sound explanation - thought policing is not sound- it is based on a preconceived notion- sold with fear of what if-


----------



## Porter Rockwell

rightwinger said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth?  Did you read the quotes* I* have used of Jefferson's on this this thread?  Do you need me to repeat them?
> 
> First, and foremost,* George Washington* disagrees with what you are trying to sell.  There is a way to make changes.  Here is *George Washington's words*.  Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them.  Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:
> 
> *"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."*
> 
> *FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*
> 
> The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of *unalienable* Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to.  There are limits to what government can change in our Republic.  Let us quote *Thomas Jefferson* again:
> 
> *Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.  - Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years
> 
> Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations  what they want to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   The Founders set up our system to be adversarial.   That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.
> 
> They were brilliant men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed is not a broad term.  The Right of the People is equally unequivocal in its meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Open to interpretation. Nobody has unlimited arms rights
> You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile
> You cannot fire your weapon any time or any place you want
Click to expand...


According to the *court rulings*:

“_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}


“_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable r*ights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'*and to 'secure*,'*not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation_.”   BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

To repeat points already made (for those too lazy to read the thread):

According to Wikipedia:


"_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." T*he right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that *any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,* originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_”  Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, *is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government.  It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“_The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States._

_..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_.   United States v. Cruikshank  92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was *not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence*.  It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is *absolute*.  By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life.  That is another way of saying that the Right is an *unalienable* Right.

So there is your interpretation.


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> So there is your interpretation.


This deserves a 5 Star Rating!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> opinion only an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> shall not be infringed is not an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  In fact gun ownership and possession has been regulated for centuries.
Click to expand...


LMFAO.  Have you been keeping up with this thread?  That is not true and has been exposed for the lie it is.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
Click to expand...


Listen to yourself: gun* control*. 

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.  

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.


----------



## Blues Man

Rye Catcher said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
Click to expand...

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Chuz Life

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.




According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was. 

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding. 

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
> They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
> That is what happened in the Revolutionary War
> 
> 
> 
> Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.
> 
> It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not obscure.  It is the meaning of the term at the time.  Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.
> 
> I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, government officials,  the schools, politicians, and of course,  the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.
> 
> They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though.  That woke a lot of people up.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth.  What are "the woke" doing?  Posting and tweeting?


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Chuz Life said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
Click to expand...

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
> 
> Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
> 
> So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context.  You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context.  Commies are like weeds.  Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there.  You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.
> 
> It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not obscure.  It is the meaning of the term at the time.  Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.
> 
> I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, government officials,  the schools, politicians, and of course,  the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.
> 
> They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though.  That woke a lot of people up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth.  What are "the woke" doing?  Posting and tweeting?
Click to expand...





No, they are talking face to face and figuring out how to deal with agents provocateurs, such as yourself, so that they are ready when the time comes.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
Click to expand...


Commies can never say *unalienable*.  

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not obscure.  It is the meaning of the term at the time.  Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.
> 
> I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, government officials,  the schools, politicians, and of course,  the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.
> 
> They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though.  That woke a lot of people up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth.  What are "the woke" doing?  Posting and tweeting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are talking face to face and figuring out how to deal with agents provocateurs, such as yourself, so that they are ready when the time comes.
Click to expand...

Yes, we the people are the enemy.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
Click to expand...








Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely.  Why don't you support Trump?  Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system.  A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.

No thanks.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Porter Rockwell said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
Click to expand...

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not obscure.  It is the meaning of the term at the time.  Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.
> 
> I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.
> 
> 
> 
> They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, government officials,  the schools, politicians, and of course,  the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.
> 
> They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though.  That woke a lot of people up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth.  What are "the woke" doing?  Posting and tweeting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are talking face to face and figuring out how to deal with agents provocateurs, such as yourself, so that they are ready when the time comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we the people are the enemy.
Click to expand...






To the ruling elite that the Trump admin has exposed.  But socialism is only more of the same.  Idiots, like you either haven't figured that out, or don't care.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely.  Why don't you support Trump?  Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system.  A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.
> 
> No thanks.
Click to expand...

I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all.  Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
Click to expand...







No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers.  Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, government officials,  the schools, politicians, and of course,  the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.
> 
> They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though.  That woke a lot of people up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth.  What are "the woke" doing?  Posting and tweeting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are talking face to face and figuring out how to deal with agents provocateurs, such as yourself, so that they are ready when the time comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we the people are the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the ruling elite that the Trump admin has exposed.  But socialism is only more of the same.  Idiots, like you either haven't figured that out, or don't care.
Click to expand...

He exposed no one and Ghislaine Maxwell was allowed to slither back into the shadows so as not to embarrass our pedophile aristocracy.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely.  Why don't you support Trump?  Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system.  A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all.  Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.
Click to expand...







Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.  

No thanks.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers.  Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.
Click to expand...


They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved.  They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely.  Why don't you support Trump?  Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system.  A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all.  Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.
> 
> No thanks.
Click to expand...



Your labels are meaningless and irrelevant.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
Click to expand...


Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

*If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
Click to expand...


You aren't much on history, are you?  While the framers were mostly men of means, some of them *earned* their way into a life of luxury.  They created the greatest nation in the annals of history where even a poor boy like Benjamin Franklin could become rich.  They opened that door to everybody.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ABikerSailor said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
Click to expand...


How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Porter Rockwell said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
Click to expand...


Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers.  Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved.  They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.
Click to expand...






No, they weren't you ignorant clod.  The merchant class and the bankers, were, and have always been, the collectors of wealth.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely.  Why don't you support Trump?  Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system.  A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all.  Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your labels are meaningless and irrelevant.
Click to expand...





Yet accurate.


----------



## westwall

ABikerSailor said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
Click to expand...






And, driving a car is a privilege.   Not a Right.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers.  Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved.  They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't you ignorant clod.  The merchant class and the bankers, were, and have always been, the collectors of wealth.
Click to expand...


Much like your "job creator" class who we subsidize with socialism.

They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, driving a car is a privilege.   Not a Right.
Click to expand...


Depends upon how wealthy you are.  Corruption is fine and dandy for the aristocracy.  We see that daily.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

westwall said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely.  Why don't you support Trump?  Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system.  A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all.  Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your labels are meaningless and irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet accurate.
Click to expand...


No, meaningless and irrelevant are not accurate.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't much on history, are you?  While the framers were mostly men of means, some of them *earned* their way into a life of luxury.  They created the greatest nation in the annals of history where even a poor boy like Benjamin Franklin could become rich.  They opened that door to everybody.
Click to expand...

I think it should be noted that most of the founders after the revolution ended up poor or dead,,,just sayin.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Porter Rockwell said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't much on history, are you?  While the framers were mostly men of means, some of them *earned* their way into a life of luxury.  They created the greatest nation in the annals of history where even a poor boy like Benjamin Franklin could become rich.  They opened that door to everybody.
Click to expand...

They "founded" what has become a corrupt 3rd world banana republic upon illegal immigration, ethnic cleansing and slavery.  And only white males of the aristocracy were granted representation via a vote.  Everyone else was/were nonpersons.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ABikerSailor said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
Click to expand...


Want in one hand and crap in the other.  See which one fills up first.  You cannot infringe on an* unalienable* Right.  You would be well served to take a civics course before engaging in this conversation.


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
> 
> Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
> 
> So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.
Click to expand...

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work


----------



## Blues Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
Click to expand...


those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns

FYI Accused is not the same as convicted


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't much on history, are you?  While the framers were mostly men of means, some of them *earned* their way into a life of luxury.  They created the greatest nation in the annals of history where even a poor boy like Benjamin Franklin could become rich.  They opened that door to everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They "founded" what has become a corrupt 3rd world banana republic upon illegal immigration, ethnic cleansing and slavery.  And only white males of the aristocracy were granted representation via a vote.  Everyone else was/were nonpersons.
Click to expand...


There are at least 14 countries today that are racially / ethnically homogeneous.  There are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth.  Approximately 91.5 percent of the Chinese in China are of one race.  Both North and South Korea are racially homogeneous (over 98 percent each.)  Japan claims to be the most racially pure nation in the world, but even at 97 percent of it being homogeneous, it isn't as pure as some smaller countries that exceed 98 percent one race.  Zimbabwe is 99.7 percent black. 

I'd bet dollars against doughnuts that if I came over to your home and tossed every product that came from China, Japan, North Korea and South Korea, you wouldn't have much left.  Making much ado over America's racial policies is a sick joke.

The reason America was founded by whites was due to the simple fact that they saw themselves as the Israelites of the Bible and America was the regathering spot for the New Jerusalem.  Take a look at this sermon, delivered in 1630 aboard the ship the Arbella as it sailed toward the New World.  So enduring is this sermon that it has been cited by statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

Insofar as slavery is concerned, the whites did not invent that institution.  You  would be hard pressed to make a moral case against it.  In the Bible, Abraham had slaves.  The Muslims had slaves thousands of years before the colonists ever considered it.  Furthermore, the framers outlawed the future importation of slaves into America when they ratified the Constitution.  You may want to read Article I  Section 9 of the Constitution.

You conflate Liberty with citizenship.  You are attempting to blame whites for the shortcomings of people in other nations while not acknowledging that, even today, more racist societies exist and slavery is still practiced by non-whites.  Let's face it:  You hate whites so you hate on Liberty and* unalienable *Rights as the ideas are unique to the white mans race and culture, developed by his unique experiences and the history / religion he brought with him here.

"_My_" system has been taken over by a mixed multitude of people that hate, loathe and despise our foundational principles - just as your are demonstrating.  "_My_" system was co opted by those waging a war of genocide against the posterity of the founders on the pretext of race, while not imposing the same standards on the rest of the world.

You're falling short of making a case against Liberty.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
> 
> Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
> 
> So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
Click to expand...


No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
> 
> FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
Click to expand...


Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people.  We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them.  Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers.  Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved.  They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't you ignorant clod.  The merchant class and the bankers, were, and have always been, the collectors of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like your "job creator" class who we subsidize with socialism.
> 
> They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







No, we don't support with socialism.  They have corrupted the system to their advantage.  it is called "crony capitalism" and is in fact fascism light.  I want those scumbags tried for their crimes every bit as much as the scumbag politicians who sold their souls to them.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, driving a car is a privilege.   Not a Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends upon how wealthy you are.  Corruption is fine and dandy for the aristocracy.  We see that daily.
Click to expand...







Guess what hon, it works the same for the ruling class no matter which system it is.  That's why the Founders at least made sure that WE had the ability to own guns too.  Not just the elites as was the case for hundreds of years.  And here you are wanting to give up the power of the PEOPLE, and give it to the ruling class.  

Which makes you either the stupidest moron on the planet, or more likely, one of their agents.


----------



## westwall

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely.  Why don't you support Trump?  Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system.  A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all.  Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your labels are meaningless and irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, meaningless and irrelevant are not accurate.
Click to expand...









Actually, they are.  You try and ignore them, but you do so at your peril, buckwheat.


----------



## depotoo

ABikerSailor said:


> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.


We were under the rule of Great Britain at the time and their military fought us at the time to try to prevent our independence. 
So, a military derived from our government is just as capable as the one that threatened us then as ours could be now.  It was included in response to the fact that a government can become a tyrant to its own.  But the possibility is lessened when its citizenry is armed.   The founder’s papers document that fact well.


----------



## beautress

Bo Didleysquat said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.
> 
> The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers.  Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved.  They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.
Click to expand...


Actually, they did a favor to anyone condemned to die in Africa in which the village overlord pawned off on unsuspecting slavetraders.

Just think of it like this  aggravated torture and death, or ferry ride to America where you get work and 3 squares a day.

Again:
aggravated torture and death in Africa or Ferry ride to America, work & 3 squares
Again:
aggravated torture and death in Africa or Ferry ride to America, work & 3 squares

Not to mention clothing and rent-free living and a whole lotta lovin'.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

beautress said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation.  Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commies can never say *unalienable*.
> 
> You have conflated Liberty with citizenry.  Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the *unalienable* Rights for all was becoming a reality.  Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats.  Kinda like your political system operates now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers.  Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved.  They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, they did a favor to anyone condemned to die in Africa in which the village overlord pawned off on unsuspecting slavetraders.
> 
> Just think of it like this  aggravated torture and death, or ferry ride to America where you get work and 3 squares a day.
> 
> Again:
> aggravated torture and death in Africa or Ferry ride to America, work & 3 squares
> Again:
> aggravated torture and death in Africa or Ferry ride to America, work & 3 squares
> 
> Not to mention clothing and rent-free living and a whole lotta lovin'.
Click to expand...


The whole slavery thing is a convenient pretext for left wing communists to deflect and avoid a serious discussion about gun control.

I get so sick hearing about slavery and watching liberals and blacks *pretend* to be so hurt and offended by the subject that I want to vomit.  Those hypocrites *NEVER* give a fleeting thought to the blacks that sold their brethren into slavery.  They never mention the big slaving companies by name.  These people never mention the fact that from 1620 (when the first governing document of the New World was written) all the way up to the War of Independence (aka the Revolutionary War), America was under British jurisdiction.  Do the hypocrites ask for Hellfire and brimstone to be rained on the "_aristocracy_?"  Are you kidding?  They fall all over themselves that the blacks have intermarried into the Royal family.

Americans treated slaves better than any slave holding country in recorded history.  Here is a link to one of my favorite books on the subject.  Slaves lived better than their blue collar Anglo Saxon contemporaries.  It is *WELL* worth your time to read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20

The OP wanted to know why the Second Amendment was written.  As someone so eloquently put it many years ago:  the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.  As the posterity of the founders find themselves under a greater and greater attack by liberals, revisionists, and people wanting a free ride predicated on misrepresentations of history, the more we find the answer to why the Second Amendment was written.


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
> 
> Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
> 
> So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
Click to expand...

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
> 
> FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people.  We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them.  Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.
Click to expand...

Prison is punishment

Criminals choose to commit crimes 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## westwall

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
> 
> Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
> 
> So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...






So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.

Sounds like a great plan.  ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books.  If you do that crime drops.  Great.  Do it.


----------



## westwall

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
> 
> FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people.  We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them.  Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prison is punishment
> 
> Criminals choose to commit crimes
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...







Exactly.  8% of the criminal population commits 80% of the violent crimes. 

Lock them up, and throw away the key.

Problem solved.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
> 
> Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
> 
> So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that scenario isn't quite true.  Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.
> 
> First-Offense DWI in Texas
> 
> *If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
> 
> FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people.  We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them.  Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prison is punishment
> 
> Criminals choose to commit crimes
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:

1)  Punish the offender

2)  Get restitution for victims when possible

3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.

Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.


----------



## Blues Man

westwall said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
> 
> Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
> 
> So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.
> 
> Sounds like a great plan.  ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books.  If you do that crime drops.  Great.  Do it.
Click to expand...

It's not up to me or you for that matter

The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they  keep their control 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
> 
> Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
> 
> So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is what I said then not true?  The principle is, they deal with the *individual.  *If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
> 
> FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people.  We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them.  Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prison is punishment
> 
> Criminals choose to commit crimes
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:
> 
> 1)  Punish the offender
> 
> 2)  Get restitution for victims when possible
> 
> 3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.
> 
> Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.
Click to expand...

Choices have consequences

I have no sympathy for any piece of shit criminal 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## westwall

Blues Man said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.
> 
> Sounds like a great plan.  ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books.  If you do that crime drops.  Great.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to me or you for that matter
> 
> The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they  keep their control
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...







The powers that be demand we give up our guns because then they WILL have full control.....and we would then be powerless.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm.  Keep those .003 percent away from society.  Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


 My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
> 
> FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people.  We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them.  Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prison is punishment
> 
> Criminals choose to commit crimes
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:
> 
> 1)  Punish the offender
> 
> 2)  Get restitution for victims when possible
> 
> 3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.
> 
> Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Choices have consequences
> 
> I have no sympathy for any piece of shit criminal
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation.  That also means a limited or suspended license.
> 
> And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
> 
> Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
> 
> And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
> 
> FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people.  We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them.  Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prison is punishment
> 
> Criminals choose to commit crimes
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:
> 
> 1)  Punish the offender
> 
> 2)  Get restitution for victims when possible
> 
> 3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.
> 
> Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Choices have consequences
> 
> I have no sympathy for any piece of shit criminal
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Nobody is asking you to have sympathy for a criminal.  If they refuse rehabilitation, they can stay in prison and rot in Hell.  The point is, it is unfair to put dangerous people back on the streets; it is insane to create different classes of citizens where one guy can defend his family and loved ones while another cannot.  Furthermore, one you lock someone out of society and deny them a job based on a background check as opposed to their achievements after conviction, you are *creating* career criminals.

But then, what the Hell, if career criminals kill innocent people, it gives anti-gunners the statistics to turn American into a third world shit hole.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.  Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting.  Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people.  As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others.  But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.

But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed.  I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.


----------



## westwall

ABikerSailor said:


> Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.  Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting.  Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people.  As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others.  But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.
> 
> But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed.  I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.









Jesus said. "If you have no sword, sell your shirt and buy one" so no, Jesus had a pretty good understanding of people.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
Click to expand...


The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ABikerSailor said:


> Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.  Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting.  Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people.  As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others.  But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.
> 
> But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed.  I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.



Jesus ordered his apostles to carry a sword even if they had to hock their robes to buy one.  That means that they were as well armed as Caesar's SWAT Team.  There is a time and a place for everything.  

It is sad about what is happening.  What is worse is that I've promoted a bill that would dramatically *reduce gun violence without gun control.* 

The gun lobby only fights defensive wars and the left enjoys hearing about mass shootings.  It gives them more numbers to lobby Congress for gun control with... and they know gun control won't stop gun violence.  As do you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
Click to expand...


I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?


----------



## Rye Catcher

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
> 
> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.  And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter.  And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload.  If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
> 
> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.  Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.  And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
Click to expand...


If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
Click to expand...


There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.  

You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.

Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.  

How would you insure the security of a free state?


----------



## Blues Man

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
Click to expand...

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.  Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting.  Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people.  As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others.  But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.
> 
> But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed.  I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.


Jesus told people to sell their cloak ang buy a sword

A gun is the modern equivalent 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Blues Man said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> 
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.
> 
> Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


FWIW:  In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

_ "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."_

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country.  As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"_sometimes_" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.)    So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws.   If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
> 
> You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
> 
> Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
> 
> How would you insure the security of a free state?
Click to expand...


I have not advocated the ban of guns either, and if I had to choose I'd ban tobacco before guns.  I have always stated I support law abiding, sane and sober citizens the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a legal firearm.

The only way to accomplish this is to have background checks, issue licenses to gun owners and for all guns to be registered.  And a national data base, different than the FBI rap sheet, but including arrests for violence, domestic violence, drug and sex trafficking and being civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.

Other lesser offenses such as DUI's, assaults and battery, criminal threats, bad conduct and dishonorable discharges too should be recorded and their privilege to own or possess a firearm needs to be further investigated before any gun is sold, given to or loaned to such a person.


----------



## westwall

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
> 
> So guns aren't the problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
Click to expand...







And every single day those people are arrested for violating P&P conditions. 

Next.


----------



## westwall

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
> 
> You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
> 
> Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
> 
> How would you insure the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not advocated the ban of guns either, and if I had to choose I'd ban tobacco before guns.  I have always stated I support law abiding, sane and sober citizens the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a legal firearm.
> 
> The only way to accomplish this is to have background checks, issue licenses to gun owners and for all guns to be registered.  And a national data base, different than the FBI rap sheet, but including arrests for violence, domestic violence, drug and sex trafficking and being civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> Other lesser offenses such as DUI's, assaults and battery, criminal threats, bad conduct and dishonorable discharges too should be recorded and their privilege to own or possess a firearm needs to be further investigated before any gun is sold, given to or loaned to such a person.
Click to expand...







And the historical record shows that following your wonderful usurpation of gun Rights, the next government comes in and takes the licenses away from those people they don't like.

This has happened 100%of the time.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
> 
> You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
> 
> Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
> 
> How would you insure the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not advocated the ban of guns either, and if I had to choose I'd ban tobacco before guns.  I have always stated I support law abiding, sane and sober citizens the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a legal firearm.
> 
> The only way to accomplish this is to have background checks, issue licenses to gun owners and for all guns to be registered.  And a national data base, different than the FBI rap sheet, but including arrests for violence, domestic violence, drug and sex trafficking and being civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> Other lesser offenses such as DUI's, assaults and battery, criminal threats, bad conduct and dishonorable discharges too should be recorded and their privilege to own or possess a firearm needs to be further investigated before any gun is sold, given to or loaned to such a person.
Click to expand...


What a pantload!  

*NOBODY *was more thoroughly investigated than Nidal Hasan, the Army Major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers in 2009.  

  Aaron Alexis  received a secret-level security clearance in March 2008 that was valid for ten years.  He killed 12 people in the Washington Navy Yard shooting in 2013.  

Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani of the Saudi Royal Air Force went on a rampage at a Florida naval base earlier this year.  He killed 3 people.

Omar Mateen killed 49 people in a gay bar in Florida and injured 53 others.  

*ALL* of those people and scores more went through background checks.  I point out the above examples because they went through extreme background checks.  Background checks don't work.

Since firearm ownership is an *unalienable *Right, your proposals are wholly unconstitutional since we don't need your permission (i.e. a license) to own a firearm.  That Right is above the law.  NOTHING you suggested *deters *a criminal; NOTHING you proposed *prevents* a criminal act; NOTHING you suggested requires that people who do commit crimes be* rehabilitated* so that they don't do it again... 

I can cut shootings down dramatically *without gun control* and *without* infringing upon the Rights of others.  *All *you have is womb to the tomb surveillance and control of people that does not affect any criminal wrongdoing.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Porter Rockwell said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.
> 
> Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FWIW:  In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.
> 
> _ "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
> 
> The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
> 
> We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.
> 
> ... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."_
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country.  As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"_sometimes_" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.)    So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws.   If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.
> 
> Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.
Click to expand...


You have a logical problem.  The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller.  The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.


----------



## westwall

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.
> 
> Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FWIW:  In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.
> 
> _ "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
> 
> The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
> 
> We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.
> 
> ... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."_
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country.  As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"_sometimes_" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.)    So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws.   If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.
> 
> Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a logical problem.  The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller.  The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States.
Click to expand...







The fact that your arguments revolve around semantics, and prior illegal government actions proves you have nothing.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making.  Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
> 
> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed".   If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
> 
> You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
> 
> Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
> 
> How would you insure the security of a free state?
Click to expand...


"Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms" is not true.  There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.


----------



## westwall

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
> 
> You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
> 
> Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
> 
> How would you insure the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms" is not true.  There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.
Click to expand...







That is a bald faced lie.  There are dozens of videos of high ranking dems outright calling for bans.  Shit at least two of the presidential candidates ran on it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.
> 
> Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FWIW:  In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.
> 
> _ "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
> 
> The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
> 
> We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.
> 
> ... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."_
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country.  As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"_sometimes_" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.)    So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws.   If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.
> 
> Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a logical problem.  The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller.  The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to reread this thread, but I have refuted this argument before (and on this thread IIRC.)  So, let me refute what you've just said:

“_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}


“_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Here is the United States Supreme Court ruling:

“_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable r*ights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'*and to 'secure*,'*not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation_.”   BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Now, let's get specific to gun control:

According to Wikipedia:


"_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. *Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right*, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_”  Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute. He does not derive it from the State government.  It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“_The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States._

_..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."* This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_.   United States v. Cruikshank  92 US 542 (1875)

The *EARLIEST* court rulings unequivocally REFUTE your position.  It was not until ALL of the founders and framers were dead and buried that the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own opinions.  That is contrary to the Rule of Law.  Imagine today that you think you're law abiding.  A statute has been written; the courts including the United States Supreme Court have ruled.  So, you think you're obeying the law?  No, you are not... the United States Supreme Court has a nasty habit of *reversing *their own opinions which is NOT allowed in the Constitution.  George Washington warned against the practice:

"_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, *it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.*_"

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795

You can beat around the bush all you like, but the clear intent of the Constitution is 180 degrees opposite of what you believe.  YOU have the problem with logic.  For when the government tries to enforce tyrannical gun laws, the people have the moral and legal Right, Duty, and Obligation to show you what the Second Amendment was REALLY written for.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
> 
> You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
> 
> Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
> 
> How would you insure the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms" is not true.  There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.
Click to expand...


The liberals who want to ban firearms claim that they only want "_reasonable restrictions_."  So, we banned the future manufacture of full auto weapons to civilians.  Gun banners weren't happy.  They outlawed the importation of foreign semi automatics because the AK became the flavor of the day.  Gun banners still were not happy.  They passed the so - called "_Assault Weapons Ban_" and it did NOT work, so that law expired despite bipartisan support with Bush vowing to sign it into permanent law.  It didn't work, so Gun banners weren't happy.  They passed the Lautenberg Amendment.  Gun banners were still bitching.  Then we passed the Brady Bill and the background check... Gun banners are still not happy.

In my years on this earth there have been *40,000 +* federal, state, county, and city rules, regulations, laws, statutes, ordinances, Executive Orders, case rulings, mandates, edicts, policies, etc. passed and Gun banners are still bitching.  

People on this thread want to repeal the Right; make it a privilege; they want to gut the Fourth Amendment; they want to dictate to me what they think is appropriate to defend my life with (as the courts have ruled that my personal protection is MY responsibility, not theirs.)  

Please quit trying to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
> 
> You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
> 
> Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
> 
> How would you insure the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms" is not true.  There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The liberals who want to ban firearms claim that they only want "_reasonable restrictions_."  So, we banned the future manufacture of full auto weapons to civilians.  Gun banners weren't happy.  They outlawed the importation of foreign semi automatics because the AK became the flavor of the day.  Gun banners still were not happy.  They passed the so - called "_Assault Weapons Ban_" and it did NOT work, so that law expired despite bipartisan support with Bush vowing to sign it into permanent law.  It didn't work, so Gun banners weren't happy.  They passed the Lautenberg Amendment.  Gun banners were still bitching.  Then we passed the Brady Bill and the background check... Gun banners are still not happy.
> 
> In my years on this earth there have been *40,000 +* federal, state, county, and city rules, regulations, laws, statutes, ordinances, Executive Orders, case rulings, mandates, edicts, policies, etc. passed and Gun banners are still bitching.
> 
> People on this thread want to repeal the Right; make it a privilege; they want to gut the Fourth Amendment; they want to dictate to me what they think is appropriate to defend my life with (as the courts have ruled that my personal protection is MY responsibility, not theirs.)
> 
> Please quit trying to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.
Click to expand...


We don't live in the 18th Century, we live in a period when mass murders of innocent human beings have become common place; face the fact that firearms are the favorite weapon of domestic terrorists.  Your obsessions with guns is noted, as is your arrogant rhetoric which is not impressive nor is it logical.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
> 
> You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
> 
> Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
> 
> How would you insure the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms" is not true.  There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The liberals who want to ban firearms claim that they only want "_reasonable restrictions_."  So, we banned the future manufacture of full auto weapons to civilians.  Gun banners weren't happy.  They outlawed the importation of foreign semi automatics because the AK became the flavor of the day.  Gun banners still were not happy.  They passed the so - called "_Assault Weapons Ban_" and it did NOT work, so that law expired despite bipartisan support with Bush vowing to sign it into permanent law.  It didn't work, so Gun banners weren't happy.  They passed the Lautenberg Amendment.  Gun banners were still bitching.  Then we passed the Brady Bill and the background check... Gun banners are still not happy.
> 
> In my years on this earth there have been *40,000 +* federal, state, county, and city rules, regulations, laws, statutes, ordinances, Executive Orders, case rulings, mandates, edicts, policies, etc. passed and Gun banners are still bitching.
> 
> People on this thread want to repeal the Right; make it a privilege; they want to gut the Fourth Amendment; they want to dictate to me what they think is appropriate to defend my life with (as the courts have ruled that my personal protection is MY responsibility, not theirs.)
> 
> Please quit trying to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't live in the 18th Century, we live in a period when mass murders of innocent human beings have become common place; face the fact that firearms are the favorite weapon of domestic terrorists.  Your obsessions with guns is noted, as is your arrogant rhetoric which is not impressive nor is it logical.
Click to expand...


You are getting desperate now.  You ran out of talking points and now want to have a personality contest.  Save it.

_"9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us."   _Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

I have a hard time suffering ignorance and then stupidity.  All you've brought to the table are proposed solutions that were implemented and* failed.  *Rather than to accept the facts, you now make this ridiculous argument (usually made by idiots) that I have some kind of obsession (sic) with guns.  What I have an obsession with is Liberty.  Being a student of history, I am reminded of what people who faced tyranny have said:

“_And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward_.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

I care about Freedom and Liberty.  Governments are antithetical to both.  Your hatred of firearms is what is illogical.  We could implement a few simple measures and avoid most of the shootings in America.  I'm going to put this in a simple perspective for you:

There are more firearms in America than there are people.  *Less than 1 percent* will ever be used in a crime.  When your ass is pushing up daisies, there will be firearms in America.  People will be killing each other.  And, instead of joining with me to decrease those deaths, you will rail against guns.  It's because people like you don't give a shit about your fellow man; you have an irrational hatred of a tool - a tool that can save your life, protect your Freedoms and Liberties; help you to hunt for a meal in a SHTF scenario and serve as insurance policy against tyranny in government. 

Accusing me of having an obsession with guns is dishonest, illogical, and a desperate attempt to insult me because you failed to put forth a workable plan to save lives.  You exposed yourself.  For you, it's not about saving lives; it's about *control*.  You just gave all of us a sound reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Until now, we were having a conversation.  Then you wanted to make it personal when it was proven your ideas won't work.  We know what people like you would do if they had the power and the rest of us were in the minority.

God created man; Samuel Colt made them equal.  Thank God for the Second Amendment.



_
_


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

westwall said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.
> 
> Sounds like a great plan.  ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books.  If you do that crime drops.  Great.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to me or you for that matter
> 
> The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they  keep their control
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powers that be demand we give up our guns because then they WILL have full control.....and we would then be powerless.
Click to expand...

Delusional, hyperbolic nonsense.

No one is ‘demanding’ we give up our guns.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> 
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.
> 
> Sounds like a great plan.  ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books.  If you do that crime drops.  Great.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to me or you for that matter
> 
> The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they  keep their control
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powers that be demand we give up our guns because then they WILL have full control.....and we would then be powerless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional, hyperbolic nonsense.
> 
> No one is ‘demanding’ we give up our guns.
Click to expand...








Pseudo intellectual spews forth nonsense as usual...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  Nidal Hasan proved that.  Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
> 
> 
> 
> When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.
> 
> Sounds like a great plan.  ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books.  If you do that crime drops.  Great.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to me or you for that matter
> 
> The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they  keep their control
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The powers that be demand we give up our guns because then they WILL have full control.....and we would then be powerless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional, hyperbolic nonsense.
> 
> No one is ‘demanding’ we give up our guns.
Click to expand...


You sound like someone who is projecting.


"_Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,' O’Rourke said in one of the biggest lines of the night_."   Beto ORourke

There was a *LOT* of applause the night he proclaimed that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ABikerSailor said:


> It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.


The US army was born in 1775 and has existed ever since; the power of Congress to raise, train and equip an army pre-dates the 2A.
So...  not so much,


> Personally?  I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete.


This may be your opinion, but recognizey our opinion does not matter here.


> Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds?  Don't see the use of them.


This may be your opinion, but recognizey our opinion does not matter here.


> Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone.


This may be your opinion, but recognize your opinion does not matter here.


----------



## M14 Shooter

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


To ensure the people have access to the means necessary to exercise their right to self-defense, individually and collectively.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rye Catcher said:


> Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations...


As you cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or the efficacy of, any of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding, there's no sense whatsoever to be found in them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rye Catcher said:


> We don't live in the 18th Century, we live in a period when mass murders of innocent human beings have become common place


1982-2019:  97 mass shootings, for an average of less than 3 per year -- this is your version of "commonplace"
How then would you describe the >80,000 defensing uses of a firearm per year?


> face the fact that firearms are the favorite weapon of domestic terrorists.


Demonstrate this to be true - cite the 'domestic terrorist' attacks of the lat, say, 40 years and demonstrate the majority of them were committed with firearms.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is ‘demanding’ we give up our guns.


^^^^^
This is an outright lie.


----------



## jameny5

fncceo said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> lagging behind 21st century tech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that...
Click to expand...

Look at this picture: Hint: America's favorite thing - killing people, money, taxes and out right corporate greed. Sums this country up to a "T"... Ping!


----------



## fncceo

jameny5 said:


> killing people, money, taxes and out right corporate greed.



Three out of four ain't bad.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.
> 
> Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FWIW:  In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.
> 
> _ "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
> 
> The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
> 
> We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.
> 
> ... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."_
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country.  As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"_sometimes_" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.)    So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws.   If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.
> 
> Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a logical problem.  The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller.  The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.
Click to expand...

True.

And as long as those laws comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence, none of those law are un-Constitutional or ‘anti-gun.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself: gun* control*.
> 
> If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
> 
> He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term.  He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person.  Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
> 
> When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency.  Bottom line:  The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution.  *That controls the wrong hands* - which is the real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is.  Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time.  How does it stop him the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still *NOTHING t*hat prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car.  In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a *ban* on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
> 
> You have not advocated for the* ban* of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you?  What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
> 
> Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms.   Somehow simple analogies elude you.  I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms.  Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison.  Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
> 
> How would you insure the security of a free state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Gun control advocates want to* ban* firearms" is not true.  There are a few who feel that way, and there are a few who believe all types of arms ought to be legal.
Click to expand...

There is a tiny, irrelevant, feckless minority who might want to ‘ban’ guns – it’s idiotic to take them seriously, and a lie to claim they’re ‘representative’ of those who want to enact firearm regulatory measures that are perfectly warranted and Constitutional.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside.  Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.
> 
> Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FWIW:  In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.
> 
> _ "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
> 
> The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
> 
> We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.
> 
> ... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."_
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country.  As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"_sometimes_" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.)    So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws.   If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.
> 
> Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a logical problem.  The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller.  The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.
Click to expand...

The 9th and 10th amendment have no ruling over the Second Amendment because the second amendment is within the Federal jurisdiction
 [Tenth Amendment] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Are the bill of rights delegated to the United States Constitution?
Is not the second amendment part of the United States Constitution?

How about the 14th amendment?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.
> 
> Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FWIW:  In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.
> 
> _ "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
> 
> The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
> 
> We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.
> 
> ... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."_
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country.  As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"_sometimes_" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.)    So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws.   If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.
> 
> Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a logical problem.  The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller.  The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to reread this thread, but I have refuted this argument before (and on this thread IIRC.)  So, let me refute what you've just said:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> Here is the United States Supreme Court ruling:
> 
> “_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable r*ights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'*and to 'secure*,'*not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation_.”   BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> Now, let's get specific to gun control:
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. *Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right*, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_”  Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute. He does not derive it from the State government.  It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> -Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
> 
> “_The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States._
> 
> _..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."* This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_.   United States v. Cruikshank  92 US 542 (1875)
> 
> The *EARLIEST* court rulings unequivocally REFUTE your position.  It was not until ALL of the founders and framers were dead and buried that the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own opinions.  That is contrary to the Rule of Law.  Imagine today that you think you're law abiding.  A statute has been written; the courts including the United States Supreme Court have ruled.  So, you think you're obeying the law?  No, you are not... the United States Supreme Court has a nasty habit of *reversing *their own opinions which is NOT allowed in the Constitution.  George Washington warned against the practice:
> 
> "_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, *it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.*_"
> 
> FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795
> 
> You can beat around the bush all you like, but the clear intent of the Constitution is 180 degrees opposite of what you believe.  YOU have the problem with logic.  For when the government tries to enforce tyrannical gun laws, the people have the moral and legal Right, Duty, and Obligation to show you what the Second Amendment was REALLY written for.
Click to expand...


Let's agree to disagree.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
> 
> 
> 
> Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.
> 
> Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FWIW:  In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.
> 
> _ "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
> 
> The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
> 
> We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.
> 
> ... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."_
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country.  As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"_sometimes_" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.)    So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws.   If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.
> 
> Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a logical problem.  The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller.  The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to reread this thread, but I have refuted this argument before (and on this thread IIRC.)  So, let me refute what you've just said:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> Here is the United States Supreme Court ruling:
> 
> “_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable r*ights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'*and to 'secure*,'*not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation_.”   BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> Now, let's get specific to gun control:
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. *Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right*, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_”  Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute. He does not derive it from the State government.  It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> -Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
> 
> “_The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States._
> 
> _..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."* This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_.   United States v. Cruikshank  92 US 542 (1875)
> 
> The *EARLIEST* court rulings unequivocally REFUTE your position.  It was not until ALL of the founders and framers were dead and buried that the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own opinions.  That is contrary to the Rule of Law.  Imagine today that you think you're law abiding.  A statute has been written; the courts including the United States Supreme Court have ruled.  So, you think you're obeying the law?  No, you are not... the United States Supreme Court has a nasty habit of *reversing *their own opinions which is NOT allowed in the Constitution.  George Washington warned against the practice:
> 
> "_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, *it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.*_"
> 
> FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795
> 
> You can beat around the bush all you like, but the clear intent of the Constitution is 180 degrees opposite of what you believe.  YOU have the problem with logic.  For when the government tries to enforce tyrannical gun laws, the people have the moral and legal Right, Duty, and Obligation to show you what the Second Amendment was REALLY written for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Do you have an absolute right to defend yourself in the best way, and using the most effective tool that you have experience with?


----------



## Dick Foster

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.



Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment.  It's not exactly rocket science.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rye Catcher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here.  If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when* federal *laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
> 
> 1) * WHO* is enforcing federal laws?  If you tell me the local and state government, then there is  problem.  State and local governments *cannot* be forced to enforce federal laws.  Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick.  So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government* policy* was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
> 
> In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy.  Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
> 
> 2)  If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
> 
> 3)  Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety.  Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something *other than gun control* and reduce firearms shootings.
> 
> 
> 
> Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.
> 
> Gun crimes were all tried  in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FWIW:  In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.
> 
> _ "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
> 
> The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
> 
> We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.
> 
> ... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."_
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country.  As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"_sometimes_" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.)    So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws.   If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.
> 
> Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a logical problem.  The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller.  The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to reread this thread, but I have refuted this argument before (and on this thread IIRC.)  So, let me refute what you've just said:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}
> 
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> Here is the United States Supreme Court ruling:
> 
> “_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable r*ights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'*and to 'secure*,'*not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation_.”   BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> Now, let's get specific to gun control:
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. *Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right*, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_”  Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute. He does not derive it from the State government.  It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> -Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
> 
> “_The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States._
> 
> _..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."* This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_.   United States v. Cruikshank  92 US 542 (1875)
> 
> The *EARLIEST* court rulings unequivocally REFUTE your position.  It was not until ALL of the founders and framers were dead and buried that the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own opinions.  That is contrary to the Rule of Law.  Imagine today that you think you're law abiding.  A statute has been written; the courts including the United States Supreme Court have ruled.  So, you think you're obeying the law?  No, you are not... the United States Supreme Court has a nasty habit of *reversing *their own opinions which is NOT allowed in the Constitution.  George Washington warned against the practice:
> 
> "_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, *it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.*_"
> 
> FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795
> 
> You can beat around the bush all you like, but the clear intent of the Constitution is 180 degrees opposite of what you believe.  YOU have the problem with logic.  For when the government tries to enforce tyrannical gun laws, the people have the moral and legal Right, Duty, and Obligation to show you what the Second Amendment was REALLY written for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's agree to disagree.
Click to expand...


What has a degenerate, double talking, anti - gun hack got to do with this?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dick Foster said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment.  It's not exactly rocket science.
Click to expand...

Yes Militia can be formed, because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


----------



## Likkmee




----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Yet another gun thread documenting how the right has come to loathe _Heller_, and conservatives’ contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited.’ It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence are perfectly lawful and Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment right is not a right to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people through ‘force of arms’ because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Don’t like it or disagree with this?

Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yet another gun thread documenting how the right has come to loathe _Heller_, and conservatives’ contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited.’ It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
> 
> Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence are perfectly lawful and Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not a right to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people through ‘force of arms’ because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’
> 
> Don’t like it or disagree with this?
> 
> Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.



All of this nonsensical horse dung was dealt with and *factually refuted in* *post # 190.*

In response to your proposed solution, I'd like to remind you what George Washington said about the current way the United States Supreme Court operates:

"_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."   George Washington, Farewell Address 1795

You presume that everything the United States Supreme Court does is proper, legal and constitutional.  Educated people realize that the only people who believe that are delusional.  The founders / framers did not want to create a government wherein 9 judges dressed like ladies in robes could get a lifetime appointment to screw the Constitution any way they like.  Ironically, the high Court itself laid the ground rules and those rules reply to the United States Supreme Court just as much as they do a city statute:


“_The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it._”
— 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

But sometimes the courts DO uphold unconstitutional laws AND sometimes the United States Supreme Court  illegally legislates from the bench.  Even the courts, including the United States Supreme Court can be held accountable:

_"It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon_.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886:

“_An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed_.”

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 1928

Citizens have a myriad of options to deal with unconstitutional laws.  You have to exhaust all of your non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions - AND leave the door open at all times to a peaceful resolution, but we are not required to accept blatantly illegal acts, even if the United States Supreme Court says so.  Bottom line:  The United States Supreme Court *NEVER had the authority to overrule their own holdings*.   Such a policy is increasingly ridiculous since we can never guess at what the law means.  We aren't mind readers and the United States Supreme Court is not a legislative body.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dick Foster said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment.  It's not exactly rocket science.
Click to expand...

The supreme court disagreed.


----------



## Dick Foster

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yet another gun thread documenting how the right has come to loathe _Heller_, and conservatives’ contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited.’ It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
> 
> Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence are perfectly lawful and Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not a right to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people through ‘force of arms’ because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’
> 
> Don’t like it or disagree with this?
> 
> Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.




Thts just so much double talking bullshit and wishful  thinking on your part. All guns laws are unconstitutional under the 2nd and are therefore illegal and unenforceable.  PERIOD!


----------



## Dick Foster

M14 Shooter said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment.  It's not exactly rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The supreme court disagreed.
Click to expand...

And it wouldn't be the first time they were wrong. That is unless you think Jim Crow etc. were on track too. Fuck the supreme court I don't need anyone to interpret a single very clearly written sentence. It wasn't put down in secret code ya know.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dick Foster said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment.  It's not exactly rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The supreme court disagreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it wouldn't be the first time they were wrong.
Click to expand...

You can disagree with them if you want, but -your- opinion doesn't matter.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

M14 Shooter said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment.  It's not exactly rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The supreme court disagreed.
Click to expand...



Dadgum hack framers


----------



## zaangalewa

*Q: Why was the second amendment written? *

*A: Red Indian wars.*


----------



## Fed Starving

fncceo said:


> They needed an amendment between one and three.
> 
> Otherwise, it would look silly.



This must be reason #1!


----------



## Dick Foster

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


In order to keep the government from running amok the way their previous one had. It's helpful to remember that Lexington and Concord were fresh in the farmer's minds as the constitution was hammered out and put down in writing. The second amendment addresses those events very directly.


----------



## miketx

zaangalewa said:


> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*


Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.


----------



## zaangalewa

miketx said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
Click to expand...


That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America  were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.



> So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.



You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.


----------



## miketx

zaangalewa said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America  were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.
Click to expand...

You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic.  The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.


----------



## zaangalewa

miketx said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America  were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic.
Click to expand...


Your are a union of democratic states. The USA seems meanwhile to accelerate its own degeneration under king Donald, the idiot, who separates the world into his personal spitlickers and enemies of the USA!  With his "ambassadors" like Richard Grenell, who know less than nothing about the job ambassador and support all over the world enemies and Nazi movements! With soldiers, who got orders to have to betray their allies, while their supreme commander was unfit for the war in Vietnam and tries to make out of heroes criminals , if they are not ready to be his personal loyal spitlickers! With an health care system, which produced not a long time ago masses of drug addicts with a widespread wrong medicamentation with opioids - and which is practically nearly helpless in case of the current pandemy, because Trump made also nonsense some years ago with the health care system of the USA and had closed research institutions for pandemy. How much information did Trump destroy including US-American institutions, who took care for the living conditions and a sane nature in the USA? Trump is a clear enemy of the nature and of natural science. And now his spitlickers are spitlicking the USA to death. You have 1300 dead citizens today. What for heavens sake do you defend? 



> The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.



The NRA is a criminal organisation. Your weapon fetishists should be in prison. A serios plan to fight against a pandemy could produce in your country a civil war. I don't think this was the idea of anyone, who had lived once in one of the thirteen states of the East coast in 1779.


----------



## miketx

zaangalewa said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America  were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are a union of democratic states. The USA seems meanwhile to accelerate its own degeneration under king Donald, the idiot, who separates the world into his personal spitlickers and enemies of the USA?  With his "ambassadors" like Richard Grenell, who know less than nothing about the job ambassador and support all over the world enemies and Nazi movements? With soldiers, who got orders to have to betray their allies, while their supreme commander was unfit for the war in Vietnam and tries to make out of heroes criminals , if they are not ready to be his personal loyal spitlickers? With an health care system, which produced not a long time ago masses of drug addicts with a widespread wrong medicamentation with opioids - and which is practically nearly helpless in case of the current pandemy, because Trump made also nonsense some years ago with the health care system of the USA and had closed research institutions for pandemy? How much information did Trump destroy including US-American institutions, who took care for the living conditions and a sane nature in the USA? Trump is a clear enemy of the nature and of natural science. And now his spitlickers are spitlicking the USA to death. You have 1300 dead citizens today. What for heavens sake do you defend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA is a criminal organisation. Your weapon fetishists should be in prison. A serios plan to fight against a pandemy could produce in your country a civil war. I don't think this was the idea of anyone, who had lived once in one of the thirteen states of the East coast in 1779.
Click to expand...

You can stop proving you are an idiot now.


----------



## zaangalewa

miketx said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America  were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are a union of democratic states. The USA seems meanwhile to accelerate its own degeneration under king Donald, the idiot, who separates the world into his personal spitlickers and enemies of the USA?  With his "ambassadors" like Richard Grenell, who know less than nothing about the job ambassador and support all over the world enemies and Nazi movements? With soldiers, who got orders to have to betray their allies, while their supreme commander was unfit for the war in Vietnam and tries to make out of heroes criminals , if they are not ready to be his personal loyal spitlickers? With an health care system, which produced not a long time ago masses of drug addicts with a widespread wrong medicamentation with opioids - and which is practically nearly helpless in case of the current pandemy, because Trump made also nonsense some years ago with the health care system of the USA and had closed research institutions for pandemy? How much information did Trump destroy including US-American institutions, who took care for the living conditions and a sane nature in the USA? Trump is a clear enemy of the nature and of natural science. And now his spitlickers are spitlicking the USA to death. You have 1300 dead citizens today. What for heavens sake do you defend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA is a criminal organisation. Your weapon fetishists should be in prison. A serios plan to fight against a pandemy could produce in your country a civil war. I don't think this was the idea of anyone, who had lived once in one of the thirteen states of the East coast in 1779.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can stop proving you are an idiot now.
Click to expand...


The best joke made Donald Trump when he said at Easter will be open all churches, because the Corona crisis will be over. He never in his life was in a church, isn't it? And how many thousand US-Americans will die before and after Easter? Will they in their graves still be proud on the greatest of all greatest presidents the USA ever had seen since the homo Neanderthaliensis invented the flute?


----------



## miketx

zaangalewa said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America  were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are a union of democratic states. The USA seems meanwhile to accelerate its own degeneration under king Donald, the idiot, who separates the world into his personal spitlickers and enemies of the USA?  With his "ambassadors" like Richard Grenell, who know less than nothing about the job ambassador and support all over the world enemies and Nazi movements? With soldiers, who got orders to have to betray their allies, while their supreme commander was unfit for the war in Vietnam and tries to make out of heroes criminals , if they are not ready to be his personal loyal spitlickers? With an health care system, which produced not a long time ago masses of drug addicts with a widespread wrong medicamentation with opioids - and which is practically nearly helpless in case of the current pandemy, because Trump made also nonsense some years ago with the health care system of the USA and had closed research institutions for pandemy? How much information did Trump destroy including US-American institutions, who took care for the living conditions and a sane nature in the USA? Trump is a clear enemy of the nature and of natural science. And now his spitlickers are spitlicking the USA to death. You have 1300 dead citizens today. What for heavens sake do you defend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA is a criminal organisation. Your weapon fetishists should be in prison. A serios plan to fight against a pandemy could produce in your country a civil war. I don't think this was the idea of anyone, who had lived once in one of the thirteen states of the East coast in 1779.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can stop proving you are an idiot now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best joke made Donald Trump when we he said at Easter will be open all churches, because the Corona crisis will be over. He never in his life was in a church, isn't it? And how many thousand US-Americans will die? Will they in their graves still be proud on the greatest of all greatest presidents the USA ever had seen since the homo Neanderthaliensis invented the flute?
Click to expand...

He said he was hoping he could you lying garbage.


----------



## zaangalewa

miketx said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America  were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are a union of democratic states. The USA seems meanwhile to accelerate its own degeneration under king Donald, the idiot, who separates the world into his personal spitlickers and enemies of the USA?  With his "ambassadors" like Richard Grenell, who know less than nothing about the job ambassador and support all over the world enemies and Nazi movements? With soldiers, who got orders to have to betray their allies, while their supreme commander was unfit for the war in Vietnam and tries to make out of heroes criminals , if they are not ready to be his personal loyal spitlickers? With an health care system, which produced not a long time ago masses of drug addicts with a widespread wrong medicamentation with opioids - and which is practically nearly helpless in case of the current pandemy, because Trump made also nonsense some years ago with the health care system of the USA and had closed research institutions for pandemy? How much information did Trump destroy including US-American institutions, who took care for the living conditions and a sane nature in the USA? Trump is a clear enemy of the nature and of natural science. And now his spitlickers are spitlicking the USA to death. You have 1300 dead citizens today. What for heavens sake do you defend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA is a criminal organisation. Your weapon fetishists should be in prison. A serios plan to fight against a pandemy could produce in your country a civil war. I don't think this was the idea of anyone, who had lived once in one of the thirteen states of the East coast in 1779.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can stop proving you are an idiot now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best joke made Donald Trump when we he said at Easter will be open all churches, because the Corona crisis will be over. He never in his life was in a church, isn't it? And how many thousand US-Americans will die? Will they in their graves still be proud on the greatest of all greatest presidents the USA ever had seen since the homo Neanderthaliensis invented the flute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was hoping he could you lying garbage.
Click to expand...


Trump lies some dozend times a day. This man is not a liar - he's the lie on its own. For this psychopath seems not to exist a difference between his lies and truth. And the USA will pay the price now and still in the next decades, even when Trump will be history.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.



so??? We supported Stalin over Hitler until Hitler  was defeated. Do you understand now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

zaangalewa said:


> And the USA will pay the price now and still in the next decades, even when Trump will be history.



Wrong of course, the real price would be paid if we switched parties to the Green New Deal and Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

fncceo said:


> I understand that a technically inferior force can never prevail against superior technology ... unless they wear pajamas.



Correction: Superior technology will always prevail in war.... unless of course there is a failure to use the superior technology like in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

EvMetro said:


> it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


_George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:_

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."


----------



## zaangalewa

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the USA will pay the price now and still in the next decades, even when Trump will be history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong of course, the real price would be paid if we switched parties to the Green New Deal and Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution?
Click to expand...


You will without any doubt pay the price Trump made in international politics. No one will be able to trust in the USA any longer. You are not reliable. You are a pure egocentric nation. "USA first"="right or wrong, my country". I guess Trump costed the world a minimum of 20-30 years. The NATO for example is only a living undead any longer. Trump says you don't need it. But he also said no one needs research in pandemies some years ago and fired scientists without to replace them. Pandemies were for him just simple not existing, so he had to learn nothing about the problems in this context. His pragmatism is _"What I don't know drives me not nervous"_. And now Trump is not paying the price. He has all around him installed professional spitlickers, who tell him, what he likes to hear and what he is able to understand (what seems not to be a lot). Who tells him what's true will be fired and defamed. But you - the people of the USA - will pay the price for all his wrong decisions. And sureally it looks like you are often happy to have to do so, while you dance on Trumps Titanic.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

zaangalewa said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the USA will pay the price now and still in the next decades, even when Trump will be history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong of course, the real price would be paid if we switched parties to the Green New Deal and Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will without any doubt pay the price Trump made in international politics. No one will be able to trust in the USA any longer. You are not reliable. I guess Trump costed the world 20-30 years.
Click to expand...

20-30??
Please give an example of  how in earth that could possibly be true or admit to being a liberal.


----------



## zaangalewa

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the USA will pay the price now and still in the next decades, even when Trump will be history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong of course, the real price would be paid if we switched parties to the Green New Deal and Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will without any doubt pay the price Trump made in international politics. No one will be able to trust in the USA any longer. You are not reliable. I guess Trump costed the world 20-30 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 20-30??
> Please give an example of  how in earth that could possibly be true or admit to being a liberal.
Click to expand...


Some simple examples: Since the 1960ies serios and competent people all over the world warn because of the changes in the biosphere and the manipulation of the climate by human beings. So Trumps world view is older than 60 years in context of the problems around climate change and biodiversity. His ideas about pandemies were far from any knowledge the world got during the "spanish influenca" from 1918-1920. So in case of such problems his world view is much older than 100 years. And "his" political slogan "USA first" was used from the Brits in the formula "Britain first" since latest 1740 - what's 280 years in a past where slavery and colonialisms grew to become problems.

And the influence of a man like Donald Trump in the world you are able to see in Jair Bolsonaro. What an idiot too. You can see his influence in his stupid attacks against Europe (and all others) and the totally stupid and extremly agresssive politics of the USA against the EU or against Germany. I guess Germany was not a long time ago the country, where the USA had the very best reputation worldwide. And what did "you" make out of this? Germans who look concerned, shake the head bewildered or make a facepalm when they hear "USA". How is it possible that a man like Donald Trump is able to be president of the USA? This is a mysterie to everyone here. G.W. Bush was a disaster - but what for heavens sake is Donald Trump? The first multidimensional disaster? Exists anything what this man not makes wrong?


----------



## eagle1462010

zaangalewa said:


> And the influence of a man like Donald Trump in the world you are able to see in Jair Bolsonaro. You can see his influence in his stupoid wars against Europe and the totally stupid and extremly agresssive politics of the USA against thevEU or against Germany. I guess Germany was not a long time ago the country, where the USA had the very best reputation worldwide. And what did "you" make out of this? Germans who look concerned, shake the head bewildered or make a facepalm when they hear "USA".


Yawn..........Germany started 2 World Wars.......lost them both.

The United States has the largest unregistered army in the world............The GUN OWNER.........liberals have been trying to take them for years........we refuse........if they keep trying to take them........Well we might just have another Civil War........If Europe comes in to try and take them or butt in...........We'll just have to KICK YOUR ASS AGAIN.........

We have been standing the line for a long time for Europe.......while they get to spend so much less because we are there.............Germany was split in half..........until the USSR died..............Fair weather friends.......WHO NEEDS THEM..........


----------



## zaangalewa

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pffffffffffffffffffffft, we support 73% of the world's dictatorships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so??? We supported Stalin over Hitler until Hitler  was defeated. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...


What you eventually never had to do, when "you" had not made the decision to take part in world war 1 and to save the ass of Great Britain, Russia and France.


----------



## zaangalewa

eagle1462010 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the influence of a man like Donald Trump in the world you are able to see in Jair Bolsonaro. You can see his influence in his stupoid wars against Europe and the totally stupid and extremly agresssive politics of the USA against thevEU or against Germany. I guess Germany was not a long time ago the country, where the USA had the very best reputation worldwide. And what did "you" make out of this? Germans who look concerned, shake the head bewildered or make a facepalm when they hear "USA".
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn..........Germany started 2 World Wars.......lost them both.
Click to expand...


A far as I know we lost in the end always every war.



> The United States has the largest unregistered army in the world............The GUN OWNER.........



An extremely violent anarchistic structure.



> liberals have been trying to take them for years........we refuse........if they keep trying to take them........Well we might just have another Civil War........If Europe comes in to try and take them or butt in...........We'll just have to KICK YOUR ASS AGAIN.........



Your country is an European nation - basing on the enlightenment: rationality (reason, science) and love (Christianity, humanity). You are a human being, who lives in the USA, and is not basing on this values.



> We have been standing the line for a long time for Europe.......while they get to spend so much less because we are there.............Germany was split in half..........until the USSR died..............Fair weather friends.......WHO NEEDS THEM..........



You "need" us - better to say you misuse us - since decades. The only thing where all and every US-American is proud on  - including the US-Americans who have also German roots (=about 40% of all citizens of the USA) - is that you wan the two world wars and made in this way the world to a better place.


----------



## eagle1462010

zaangalewa said:


> An extremely violent anarchistic structure.


Only to those who would attack it.  Our try to subvert the Constitution.


----------



## zaangalewa

eagle1462010 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> An extremely violent anarchistic structure.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those who would attack it.  Our try to subvert the Constitution.
Click to expand...


You are an idiot - and you know it. And you find it nice that idiots are able to govern the world with the help of weapons. Every professor in every university has do what an idiot with a gun in his hands tells him to do. You are an absurde actor in a surrealistic game with rules which you don't understand. You are the apocaloditie your parents warned you never to be.


----------



## Flash

zaangalewa said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America  were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are a union of democratic states. The USA seems meanwhile to accelerate its own degeneration under king Donald, the idiot, who separates the world into his personal spitlickers and enemies of the USA!  With his "ambassadors" like Richard Grenell, who know less than nothing about the job ambassador and support all over the world enemies and Nazi movements! With soldiers, who got orders to have to betray their allies, while their supreme commander was unfit for the war in Vietnam and tries to make out of heroes criminals , if they are not ready to be his personal loyal spitlickers! With an health care system, which produced not a long time ago masses of drug addicts with a widespread wrong medicamentation with opioids - and which is practically nearly helpless in case of the current pandemy, because Trump made also nonsense some years ago with the health care system of the USA and had closed research institutions for pandemy. How much information did Trump destroy including US-American institutions, who took care for the living conditions and a sane nature in the USA? Trump is a clear enemy of the nature and of natural science. And now his spitlickers are spitlicking the USA to death. You have 1300 dead citizens today. What for heavens sake do you defend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA is a criminal organisation. Your weapon fetishists should be in prison. A serios plan to fight against a pandemy could produce in your country a civil war. I don't think this was the idea of anyone, who had lived once in one of the thirteen states of the East coast in 1779.
Click to expand...


----------



## eagle1462010

zaangalewa said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> An extremely violent anarchistic structure.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those who would attack it.  Our try to subvert the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot - and you know it. And you find it nice that idiots are able to govern the world with the help of weapons. Every professor in every university has do what an idiot with a gun in his hands tells him to do. You are an absurde actor in a surrealistic game with rules which you don't understand. You are the apocaloditie your parents warned you never to be.
Click to expand...

And...........LOL

You done pouting..........We aren't fucking Europe........deal with it........We will not go down PEACEFULLY......


----------



## JoeB131

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.



It was put there so the STATES could take back control, hence the part about "Well-Regulated Militias".  

They never envisioned Adam Lanza with a semi-automatic going through a school.  Probably because the 1789 "School Shooter" would get off one shot and then everyone would flee in the three minutes it would take to reload his muzzle loaded musket.

The thing was, in 1789, guns were only effective in mass volleys.  Hence, "Well-regulated".  It wasn't one maniac with a gun running through a church or a school or a shopping mall, which is what we have today.


----------



## Flash

JoeB131 said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was put there so the STATES could take back control, hence the part about "Well-Regulated Militias".
> 
> They never envisioned Adam Lanza with a semi-automatic going through a school.  Probably because the 1789 "School Shooter" would get off one shot and then everyone would flee in the three minutes it would take to reload his muzzle loaded musket.
> 
> The thing was, in 1789, guns were only effective in mass volleys.  Hence, "Well-regulated".  It wasn't one maniac with a gun running through a church or a school or a shopping mall, which is what we have today.
Click to expand...



I know you are an uneducated low information Moon Bat and get many things wrong but to keep from seeming to be a fool on threads like this you really should read the _Miller_ case. In that case the Supremes said that the Second applied to firearms in use by the military.


----------



## JoeB131

Flash said:


> I know you are an uneducated low information Moon Bat and get many things wrong but to keep from seeming to be a fool on threads like this you really should read the _Miller_ case. In that case the Supremes said that the Second applied to firearms in use by the military.



Maybe you should read the Miller Case...  it clearly stated the government can regulate the kind of firearms available and who can get them.


----------



## zaangalewa

Flash said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America  were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are a union of democratic states. The USA seems meanwhile to accelerate its own degeneration under king Donald, the idiot, who separates the world into his personal spitlickers and enemies of the USA!  With his "ambassadors" like Richard Grenell, who know less than nothing about the job ambassador and support all over the world enemies and Nazi movements! With soldiers, who got orders to have to betray their allies, while their supreme commander was unfit for the war in Vietnam and tries to make out of heroes criminals , if they are not ready to be his personal loyal spitlickers! With an health care system, which produced not a long time ago masses of drug addicts with a widespread wrong medicamentation with opioids - and which is practically nearly helpless in case of the current pandemy, because Trump made also nonsense some years ago with the health care system of the USA and had closed research institutions for pandemy. How much information did Trump destroy including US-American institutions, who took care for the living conditions and a sane nature in the USA? Trump is a clear enemy of the nature and of natural science. And now his spitlickers are spitlicking the USA to death. You have 1300 dead citizens today. What for heavens sake do you defend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA is a criminal organisation. Your weapon fetishists should be in prison. A serios plan to fight against a pandemy could produce in your country a civil war. I don't think this was the idea of anyone, who had lived once in one of the thirteen states of the East coast in 1779.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 317423
Click to expand...


You say nothing very loud.


----------



## zaangalewa

eagle1462010 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> An extremely violent anarchistic structure.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those who would attack it.  Our try to subvert the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot - and you know it. And you find it nice that idiots are able to govern the world with the help of weapons. Every professor in every university has do what an idiot with a gun in his hands tells him to do. You are an absurde actor in a surrealistic game with rules which you don't understand. You are the apocaloditie your parents warned you never to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And...........LOL
> 
> You done pouting..........We aren't fucking Europe........deal with it........We will not go down PEACEFULLY......
Click to expand...


You don't have to go down. You are down.


----------



## Flash

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are an uneducated low information Moon Bat and get many things wrong but to keep from seeming to be a fool on threads like this you really should read the _Miller_ case. In that case the Supremes said that the Second applied to firearms in use by the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read the Miller Case...  it clearly stated the government can regulate the kind of firearms available and who can get them.
Click to expand...



LOL!  You are confused Moon Bat.  Either that you are doubling down on your stupidity.

It said that the Second applied to weapons used by the military.  They found Miller to be guilty because the saw off shotgun that he had was not used by the military.  However, they were wrong because the military did use  sawed off shotguns in WWI.  They didn't do their homework.  If they had then Miller would have been found innocent under their criteria.


----------



## JoeB131

Flash said:


> LOL! You are confused Moon Bat. Either that you are doubling down on your stupidity.
> 
> It said that the Second applied to weapons used by the military. They found Miller to be guilty because the saw off shotgun that he had was not used by the military. However, they were wrong because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI. They didn't do their homework. If they had then Miller would have been found innocent under their criteria.



What they found was that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional.  That was always the intention of the ruling, because they picked a case where the government would appeal and Miller (a convicted bank robber with no resources) wouldn't be able to make a case.  (Miller was in fact, shot and killed by associates before the ruling was rendered.) 

The thing is, the NFA worked.  The US had a murder rate of 9.6 per 100,000 in 1933, with bank robbers and gangsters shooting each other with tommy guns.  By 1940, it declined to 5 per 100K and stayed there until the 1960's when the gun industry started flooding our streets with guns again.


----------



## Flash

JoeB131 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! You are confused Moon Bat. Either that you are doubling down on your stupidity.
> 
> It said that the Second applied to weapons used by the military. They found Miller to be guilty because the saw off shotgun that he had was not used by the military. However, they were wrong because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI. They didn't do their homework. If they had then Miller would have been found innocent under their criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they found was that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional.  That was always the intention of the ruling, because they picked a case where the government would appeal and Miller (a convicted bank robber with no resources) wouldn't be able to make a case.  (Miller was in fact, shot and killed by associates before the ruling was rendered.)
> 
> The thing is, the NFA worked.  The US had a murder rate of 9.6 per 100,000 in 1933, with bank robbers and gangsters shooting each other with tommy guns.  By 1940, it declined to 5 per 100K and stayed there until the 1960's when the gun industry started flooding our streets with guns again.
> 
> View attachment 317427
Click to expand...



You are really an idiot aren't you?

Luke Miller was not at the hearing and there was not a rigorous defense.  If there had been the defense would have showed that the sawed off shotgun was in use by the military and therefore not prohibited under the stupid NFA laws.

According to the Miller ruling my Class III M-16 should not be covered under the filthy NFA laws.

The _Miller_ case protected arms in use by the military, which you denied in your post above proving once again that you are simply a confused Moon Bat that don't know your ass from a  hole in the ground.

From Wikipedia.     

_In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. *Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, *or that its use could contribute to the common defense. _


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Flash said:


> It said that the Second applied to weapons used by the military. They found Miller to be guilty because the saw off shotgun that he had was not used by the military. However, they were wrong because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI. They didn't do their homework. If they had then Miller would have been found innocent under their criteria.



  A more important point is that the Supreme Court heard only one side of the argument.  After his conviction was overturned by a lower court, and he was set loose, Jack Miller went into hiding.  Nobody appeared before the Supreme Court to argue his side of the case; the court only heard the government's side of the case.

  It's possible, and in fact, probably very likely, that had a competent argument been presented for Miller's side, the court might have been dissuaded from the conclusion that the Second Amendment only applied to weapons that had a military application.  Such an argument would certainly have called the court's attention to the fact that the sawed-off shotgun that Miller was originally convicted of taking across state lines was, in fact, comparable to weapons that were in use by our military at that time; and by all the other logic that the court employed, they would have had no choice but to conclude that Miller did, indeed, have the right to posses that weapon, and that prosecuting him for it was a violation of the Second Amendment.  By that logic, if cases came before them involving machine guns, submachine guns, and various other weapons regulated under the NFA that were, in fact, comparable to weapons in use by our military, then they would have had to find that the right to possess these was also protected under the Second Amendment.

  And if that logic were applied today, they'd have to hold that we have the right to possess weapons comparable to those with which our own soldiers are equipped.  At the very least, this would mean, not the fraudulently-designated _“assault weapons”_, but true assault rifles capable of fully-automatic or burst-fire operation, as well as, at least light machine guns.

  It is truly ignorant for JoeB131 to think that the U.S. vs. Miller case helps support any of his positions.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> That was always the intention of the ruling, because they picked a case where the government would appeal and Miller (a convicted bank robber with no resources) wouldn't be able to make a case.



  I do not know if that is true, but it certainly seems plausible.  And you're OK with that?  If true, then what this means is that government blatantly cheated in this case, picking a case where they knew that the opposing side would not get a fair chance to have its arguments heard.  It's an indication that they knew the principles that they were trying to establish were illegitimate, and would not stand if given a fair hearing.

———

[Later edit]

  On doing some reading, it appears that something very similar to this is very likely the case.  A judge Heartsill Ragon immediately dismissed the indictment against Jack Miller and Frank Layton for transporting the short-barreled shotgun across state lines, stating that the NFA violated the Second Amendment.  But on many other occasions, Ragon expressed strong support for much more extreme gun-control positions, and there seems to be, if not outright proof, string circumstantial indication that he intentionally set Miler and Layton up to be a test case for the Supreme Court, knowing that neither Miller nor Layton would show up nor hire an attorney to represent their side, giving the government the chance to present its case one-sided, with no opposition.

  Two relevant Wikipedia article state this outright, but the supporting documents to which they link are someone less definite.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
_Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, '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.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.

In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument._​
  I note that shortly thereafter, in this article, it states this…
_
On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:


The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
_​
  Point 1 is a outright lie.  Nobody believes that the NFA was meant merely to collect revenue.  The very name of the act, _“National Firearm Act”_, refutes that, making it clear that its intent and purpose has to do with firearms, and not with revenue collection.

  Commerce involves buying, selling, trading, manufacturing things, not merely possessing or transporting them.  Point #2 is also an outright lie, unless it could be established that Layton and Miller transported the shotgun that they bought in one state, with the intent of selling or trading it to someone else in another state.

  Point #3 is a stretch.  Surely, if anyone had been present to argue the opposing case, they would have argued against this claim, and probably succeeded in convincing the court that this point was wrong.

  Point #4 is not quite an outright lie, but a very obvious bit of deception.  It depends on point #3 to establish that the Second Amendment only protects arms that are appropriate for use in an organized militia.  But then, instead of arguing whether this type of weapon meets that criterion, they argued that the very specific shotgun for which Miller and Layton were prosecuted had not, itself been used in any such application, completely avoiding the question of whether that type of arm in general might have a military application, or might in fact be in current military use (which it was).

  So, not only was the government's side set up to be argued unopposed, but the lawyers arguing that side absolutely committed perjury at least twice, and made at least one more statement that, while not an outright lie, was blatantly deceptive enough in intent that it could very well have been treated as perjury as well.  It's surprising that out of the nine members of the court, none of them caught this deception, or if they did, they ignored it in the subsequent ruling.

_The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense._​

Heartsill Ragon - Wikipedia
_In 1939, Ragon authored an opinion in United States v. Miller, 26 F. Supp. 1002, stating that a federal statute violated the Second Amendment. Ragon was in reality, in favor of the gun control law and was part of an elaborate plan to give the government a sure win when they appealed to the supreme court which they promptly did. Miller, who was a known bank robber, had just testified in court against his whole gang and would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. Ragon knew that Miller would not pay for an attorney to argue the case at the supreme court and so the government would have a sure win because the other side would not show up. The plan worked perfectly. His opinion was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Miller (1939)._​
  So, really, the evidence seems to strongly indicate that yes, government cheated.  On that basis alone, the U.S. vs. Miller ruling ought to be thrown out as illegitimate.


----------



## Natural Citizen

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.



From my personal files...too much to type...oughta clear the question up rather well.


----------



## JoeB131

Flash said:


> You are really an idiot aren't you?
> 
> Luke Miller was not at the hearing and there was not a rigorous defense. If there had been the defense would have showed that the sawed off shotgun was in use by the military and therefore not prohibited under the stupid NFA laws.



Well, yeah, he wasn't there because he was a career criminal being murdered by other career criminals, which kind proved why we needed a NFA law.

You didn't think this through at all, did you?


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> I do not know if that is true, but it certainly seems plausible. And you're OK with that? If true, then what this means is that government blatantly cheated in this case, picking a case where they knew that the opposing side would not get a fair chance to have its arguments heard. It's an indication that they knew the principles that they were trying to establish were illegitimate, and would not stand if given a fair hearing.



OR they were dealing with a country where people were shooting each other in the streets, where gangsters were overthrowing local governments, where banks were being robbed on a daily basis...   

So they picked a case where a CAREER CRIMINAL had been caught with guns he was using in crimes, which was a great case to prove WHY we needed an NFA.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> OR they were dealing with a country where people were shooting each other in the streets, where gangsters were overthrowing local governments, where banks were being robbed on a daily basis...
> 
> So they picked a case where a CAREER CRIMINAL had been caught with guns he was using in crimes, which was a great case to prove WHY we needed an NFA.



  They didn't prove that at all.  They didn't even try to prove that.

They *CHEATED*.  Indications are that they knew that they could not win this case legitimately, that the NFA was, in fact, blatantly unconstitutional, and would be so found by any court in which a fair hearing was given.  So they illegitimately set up a case, where they knew the defendants' side would not be presented, and they committed perjury in presenting their own unopposed case.

  And for all their skulduggery, they got a ruling, which, if further applied in cases where both sides were given a fair hearing and competent representation, would have resulting in most of the NFA being thrown out anyway.  They only won this case, because nobody was there argue against their premise that only weapons suitable for military use were covered by the Second Amendment, or to inform the court that the short-barreled shotgun was, in fact, a standard item of military equipment at the time.  For that matter, so was the infamous Thompson submachine gun, which is popularly perceived as the weapon with which these gangsters were shooting each other in the street, overthrowing local governments, and robbing banks, and so were several other weapons to which the NFA applied.


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> They didn't prove that at all. They didn't even try to prove that.
> 
> They *CHEATED*. Indications are that they knew that they could not win this case legitimately, that the NFA was, in fact, blatantly unconstitutional, and would be so found by any court in which a fair hearing was given. So they illegitimately set up a case, where they knew the defendants' side would not be presented, and they committed perjury in presenting their own unopposed case.



Sorry, man, the Supreme Court picks cases all the time based on what would be the best representation of why the law needs to be changed or ruled upon.   

The country had collapsed into complete chaos with gun violence.  The very fact someone like Miller was running about the country sticking up banks because he had easy access to guns was a problem.   But by the logic of second amendment nuts, he had a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO OWN A GUN, DAMMIT.   



Bob Blaylock said:


> And for all their skulduggery, they got a ruling, which, if further applied in cases where both sides were given a fair hearing and competent representation, would have resulting in most of the NFA being thrown out anyway. They only won this case, because nobody was there argue against their premise that only weapons suitable for military use were covered by the Second Amendment, or to inform the court that the short-barreled shotgun was, in fact, a standard item of military equipment at the time. For that matter, so was the infamous Thompson submachine gun, which is popularly perceived as the weapon with which these gangsters were shooting each other in the street, overthrowing local governments, and robbing banks, and so were several other weapons to which the NFA applied.



But that was the point. Those guns were gotten out of the hands of criminals with the NFA.   And funny thing, back in those days, the NRA supported these kinds of common sense gun laws.  

Now we have Crazy Nancy Lanza stocking up for the Zombie Apocalypse, and guys like you are just fine with that until her nutty kid shoots up a school.


----------



## Polishprince

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.




Conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of the people as individuals to be armed.

Libs see the 2nd Amendment as a GOVERNMENTAL right, the right of the people as a whole, in the Military, to have firearms.  Libs feel that if it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, the Army- as well as the Marines and other service branches- would have to give up their guns.


----------



## JoeB131

Polishprince said:


> Conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of the people as individuals to be armed.
> 
> Libs see the 2nd Amendment as a GOVERNMENTAL right, the right of the people as a whole, in the Military, to have firearms. Libs feel that if it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, the Army- as well as the Marines and other service branches- would have to give up their guns.



Well, it's pretty clear that the Second Amendment was about Militias, and not guns.


----------



## OldLady

EvMetro said:


> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.


It was to arm the local militias.  The Founders were opposed to a standing army, but they wanted people ready to fight.  Militia participation was required and regular, and you needed to bring your own firearm.  European countries wanting a piece of the action was NOT over yet, in 1789.  We were newborn, broke and without any powerful allies.  We were vulnerable.

If it had been written "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," no one could argue with it.  Others believe it was so the people could again, if they had to, revolt against their government.  Others interpret it as arming the local militias, since we had no standing army, and would therefore no longer apply.  However, the point is moot now, because AR-15's aren't going to stop our military.  An uprising against our government means an uprising against our military.  The idea of doing it with our guns is preposterous.  The only danger guns pose now is the danger to fellow citizens.


----------



## rightwinger

According to the Federalist Papers, the Second Amendment was written so that future generations would have the proper weapons to slaughter young schoolchildren, shoot up shopping malls and terrorize the local population.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

miketx said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
Click to expand...


"_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_."
- Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833 

Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison.  Madison wrote the Second Amendment.


----------



## rightwinger

Porter Rockwell said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_."
> - Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833
> 
> Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison.  Madison wrote the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

In almost 250 years, our citizens have never had to use private arms against the government. 

We rely on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the vote to keep our Government in check. 

THAT is what Madison intended


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_."
> - Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833
> 
> Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison.  Madison wrote the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In almost 250 years, our citizens have never had to use private arms against the government.
> 
> We rely on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the vote to keep our Government in check.
> 
> THAT is what Madison intended
Click to expand...

You skipped by the Civil War in History Class...........Were you Home Schooled......LOL


----------



## Porter Rockwell

rightwinger said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_."
> - Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833
> 
> Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison.  Madison wrote the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In almost 250 years, our citizens have never had to use private arms against the government.
> 
> We rely on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the vote to keep our Government in check.
> 
> THAT is what Madison intended
Click to expand...


That is a lie.  I was personally in an armed stand-off that ended peacefully.  AND our federal government has used the military against the people of the United States.  Occasionally they do dry runs to see the limits of the peoples resolve.


----------



## rightwinger

Porter Rockwell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_."
> - Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833
> 
> Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison.  Madison wrote the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In almost 250 years, our citizens have never had to use private arms against the government.
> 
> We rely on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the vote to keep our Government in check.
> 
> THAT is what Madison intended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  I was personally in an armed stand-off that ended peacefully.  AND our federal government has used the military against the people of the United States.  Occasionally they do dry runs to see the limits of the peoples resolve.
Click to expand...

You had an armed stand-off with our Government?

Tell us more


----------



## rightwinger

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_."
> - Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833
> 
> Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison.  Madison wrote the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In almost 250 years, our citizens have never had to use private arms against the government.
> 
> We rely on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the vote to keep our Government in check.
> 
> THAT is what Madison intended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You skipped by the Civil War in History Class...........Were you Home Schooled......LOL
Click to expand...


Those were not armed citizens 
Those were STATES in rebellion.


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_."
> - Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833
> 
> Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison.  Madison wrote the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In almost 250 years, our citizens have never had to use private arms against the government.
> 
> We rely on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the vote to keep our Government in check.
> 
> THAT is what Madison intended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You skipped by the Civil War in History Class...........Were you Home Schooled......LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were not armed citizens
> Those were STATES in rebellion.
Click to expand...

LOL.......spin the Lies Troll...........

Your one liner Troll post got sidetracked ......LMAO


----------



## rightwinger

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_."
> - Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833
> 
> Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison.  Madison wrote the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In almost 250 years, our citizens have never had to use private arms against the government.
> 
> We rely on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the vote to keep our Government in check.
> 
> THAT is what Madison intended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You skipped by the Civil War in History Class...........Were you Home Schooled......LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were not armed citizens
> Those were STATES in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......spin the Lies Troll...........
> 
> Your one liner Troll post got sidetracked ......LMAO
Click to expand...


Read your history of the Civil War 
Ever hear of Gen Lee?


----------



## eagle1462010

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: Why was the second amendment written?
> 
> A: Red Indian wars.*
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_."
> - Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833
> 
> Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President James Madison.  Madison wrote the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In almost 250 years, our citizens have never had to use private arms against the government.
> 
> We rely on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the vote to keep our Government in check.
> 
> THAT is what Madison intended
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You skipped by the Civil War in History Class...........Were you Home Schooled......LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were not armed citizens
> Those were STATES in rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.......spin the Lies Troll...........
> 
> Your one liner Troll post got sidetracked ......LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your history of the Civil War
> Ever hear of Gen Lee?
Click to expand...

Sure did...............beat Yankees ass for most of the War.......screwed up royally in Antiedam and Gettysburg.


----------



## M14 Shooter

OldLady said:


> EvMetro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment,  but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written.  Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> It was to arm the local militias.
Click to expand...

No.
It was to make sure the people always had access to the weapons necessary to an effective militia.
You may not see the difference, but its there and its clear .


----------

