Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment

[Chuz Life]

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

An enema may help your disposition.....LOL

Maybe removing your head from your limp dick ass would help you instead?

Repeatedly PWNED in his own thread.

I (almost) feel sorry for him.

 

[Flash]

Buy more guns and ammo, it's the American thing to do

Well Obama has been the best gun salesman in the history of the world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."

So, a state must remain free from the tyranny of Washington politicians by arming itself.....In other words, if Mississippi wants to re-establish slave ownership, and the Feds object, Mississippians are armed andready to fight off those US army tanks and jets

Of course not, the notion is nonsense.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

A minority of Americans can’t subjectively decide that the Federal government has suddenly become ‘tyrannical’ and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government, contrary to the will of the majority.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, and the government cannot be ‘overthrown’ by force absent the consent of the majority of the people.

That’s why the Heller Court ruled that the Second Amendment right was an individual – not collective – right, and not dependent upon the militia.

Citizens have the individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense, where the states may not seek to prohibit citizens from indeed possessing firearms.

The Second Amendment right allows citizens to protect themselves from lawlessness, violence, and bodily harm through criminal acts, not ‘overthrow’ the government.

The 1st amendment (especially in conjunction with the 2nd amendment) secures the people's right to "assemble" and to form "militias" to maintain the "security" of their free States.

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

2. "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."

No, the First Amendment allows people to assemble to petition the government.

The whole point of that clause is so people can tell the government what they think.

The Presser case in the 1800s didn't say that men had a right to assemble armed together as a military force. This makes no sense.

The Founding Fathers had the contradiction of they wanted the people to be able to overthrow a bad government but didn't want good government to be overthrown.

ALL MILITIAS that are in the Constitution have officers APPOINTED BY THE STATES. Without a state appointed officer, the militia is not the militia in the US constitution and has no protections whatsoever.

Of course it's my bed time and I don';t have time for a lengthy debate on this but, you are incorrect when you read the BOR's to conclude that we "the people" only have a right to assemble to petition the government. (you are wrong when you conclude that we don't have the right to form militias)

You acknowledge the fact that the founders "wanted the people to be able to overthrow a bad government" and I appreciate that. But! To then suggest that that same "bad government" gets to "appoint the officers" for the militias that are being formed to overthrow that "bad government?"

That is ridiculous.

I think you might want to think that through again.

Well, I didn't say the people only have the right to assemble to petition the government. I said this was the reason it was in the Constitution. Just because something isn't protected by a constitutional right, doesn't mean you can't do it.


The point being that the STATES appoint the officers, not the Federal government. Thereby stating that if the Feds have overreached their position, that the States are the ones who are basically going to organize the militias.

 

[nat4900]

Repeatedly PWNED in his own thread.

I (almost) feel sorry for him.

Please don't feel sorry for me........I have little tolerance for morons......and you and your fellow nitwits clutching your guns and bible are certainly morons....Funny, at times, but morons nonetheless.

 

[Chuz Life]

So, a state must remain free from the tyranny of Washington politicians by arming itself.....In other words, if Mississippi wants to re-establish slave ownership, and the Feds object, Mississippians are armed andready to fight off those US army tanks and jets

Of course not, the notion is nonsense.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

A minority of Americans can’t subjectively decide that the Federal government has suddenly become ‘tyrannical’ and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government, contrary to the will of the majority.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, and the government cannot be ‘overthrown’ by force absent the consent of the majority of the people.

That’s why the Heller Court ruled that the Second Amendment right was an individual – not collective – right, and not dependent upon the militia.

Citizens have the individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense, where the states may not seek to prohibit citizens from indeed possessing firearms.

The Second Amendment right allows citizens to protect themselves from lawlessness, violence, and bodily harm through criminal acts, not ‘overthrow’ the government.

The 1st amendment (especially in conjunction with the 2nd amendment) secures the people's right to "assemble" and to form "militias" to maintain the "security" of their free States.

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

2. "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."

No, the First Amendment allows people to assemble to petition the government.

The whole point of that clause is so people can tell the government what they think.

The Presser case in the 1800s didn't say that men had a right to assemble armed together as a military force. This makes no sense.

The Founding Fathers had the contradiction of they wanted the people to be able to overthrow a bad government but didn't want good government to be overthrown.

ALL MILITIAS that are in the Constitution have officers APPOINTED BY THE STATES. Without a state appointed officer, the militia is not the militia in the US constitution and has no protections whatsoever.

Of course it's my bed time and I don';t have time for a lengthy debate on this but, you are incorrect when you read the BOR's to conclude that we "the people" only have a right to assemble to petition the government. (you are wrong when you conclude that we don't have the right to form militias)

You acknowledge the fact that the founders "wanted the people to be able to overthrow a bad government" and I appreciate that. But! To then suggest that that same "bad government" gets to "appoint the officers" for the militias that are being formed to overthrow that "bad government?"

That is ridiculous.

I think you might want to think that through again.

Well, I didn't say the people only have the right to assemble to petition the government. I said this was the reason it was in the Constitution. Just because something isn't protected by a constitutional right, doesn't mean you can't do it.


The point being that the STATES appoint the officers, not the Federal government. Thereby stating that if the Feds have overreached their position, that the States are the ones who are basically going to organize the militias.

And what about when the State and the Federal Governments are (tyrannically) in collusion with each other against the "people?"

What then?

 

[Chuz Life]

Repeatedly PWNED in his own thread.

I (almost) feel sorry for him.

Please don't feel sorry for me........I have little tolerance for morons......and you and your fellow nitwits clutching your guns and bible are certainly morons....Funny, at times, but morons nonetheless.

I said "almost" and I aint religious.

 

[whitehall]

You could say many (left wing) historians and biographers have long tried to "find a reason" for the entire Bill of Rights. Lefties have been at war with the 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd Amendment for the last half century. FDR appointed a former member of the KKK to the Supreme Court when it seemed that Blacks and Papists were becoming too upity. Justice Black wrote the majority opinion justifying the president's incarceration of Japanese American citizens and then he went on to find a "separation of church and state" clause that never appeared in the Constitution to justify the democrat party's war on Christianity. Before the left tries to analyze the Founding Fathers reasoning for the 2nd Amendment they have to explain where the hell they found the "separation of church and state" and while they are at it they need to explain the concept of "privacy" that never existed in the Constitution that has been used to justify the murder of millions of unborn children. After that we might go into the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

China, Russia and Cartels threaten this country daily but please keep on focusing there is no threat at our borders or within it either.

True....and that is why us "leftists" RELY on some redneck from Alabama to defend us from China, Russia and Cartels.........I mean, we don't trust our troops, our navy and our air force......the real defense is that guy in Alabama.......Are we placing too much faith on that guy?

Well they used to use "that guy" in the militias in wars, then decided that wasn't working, and so went for the National Guard.

Well it does not matter because even Nancy Pelosi will not even entertain those like you and the OP'er when it come to changing the Second Amendment, and what a terrorist she is!

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

This is why no one takes your posts seriously – they’re mostly ignorant, ridiculous lies, this post included.

Pelosi is not a ‘terrorist’ nor does she seek to ‘change’ the Second Amendment – indeed, no one has the right or authority to do any such thing, save that of the people and the states through the amendment process.

And even the amendment process can’t ‘change’ the Second Amendment, the Constitution can only be amended to repeal an Amendment.

When the Supreme Court rules on the Second Amendment it’s not ‘changing’ the Amendment, either – to interpret is not to ‘change,’

Last, the measures proposed by democrats are perfectly Constitutional, in no way ‘violating’ the Second Amendment right, as the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of such measures, where acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We are all slaves to big government but these Libtard Moon Bats are too stupid to understand it.

Yes, we RELY on your superior wisdom.....By the way, when does the revolution start to overthrow the government??? I have already made plans for this weekend but for something as important as your revolution I can change them

(what an )

Do you own a Gun?

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

One need not ‘own a gun’ to express his views and opinions concerning the Second Amendment; and that one might not own a gun in no way undermines his views and opinions.

 

[Rustic]

China, Russia and Cartels threaten this country daily but please keep on focusing there is no threat at our borders or within it either.

True....and that is why us "leftists" RELY on some redneck from Alabama to defend us from China, Russia and Cartels.........I mean, we don't trust our troops, our navy and our air force......the real defense is that guy in Alabama.......Are we placing too much faith on that guy?

Well they used to use "that guy" in the militias in wars, then decided that wasn't working, and so went for the National Guard.

Well it does not matter because even Nancy Pelosi will not even entertain those like you and the OP'er when it come to changing the Second Amendment, and what a terrorist she is!

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

This is why no one takes your posts seriously – they’re mostly ignorant, ridiculous lies, this post included.

Pelosi is not a ‘terrorist’ nor does she seek to ‘change’ the Second Amendment – indeed, no one has the right or authority to do any such thing, save that of the people and the states through the amendment process.

And even the amendment process can’t ‘change’ the Second Amendment, the Constitution can only be amended to repeal an Amendment.

When the Supreme Court rules on the Second Amendment it’s not ‘changing’ the Amendment, either – to interpret is not to ‘change,’

Last, the measures proposed by democrats are perfectly Constitutional, in no way ‘violating’ the Second Amendment right, as the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of such measures, where acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)).

Says you, I don't agree with anything they come up with just like millions of others…

 

[Chuz Life]

Why don't you move to a country that fit your Progressive views instead?

Do you even own a gun?

I have moved to such a country....and YES for the second question.

What kind of Gun?

Nerf.....

China, Russia and Cartels threaten this country daily but please keep on focusing there is no threat at our borders or within it either.

True....and that is why us "leftists" RELY on some redneck from Alabama to defend us from China, Russia and Cartels.........I mean, we don't trust our troops, our navy and our air force......the real defense is that guy in Alabama.......Are we placing too much faith on that guy?

Well they used to use "that guy" in the militias in wars, then decided that wasn't working, and so went for the National Guard.

Well it does not matter because even Nancy Pelosi will not even entertain those like you and the OP'er when it come to changing the Second Amendment, and what a terrorist she is!

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

So, you've decided you know me, and you know what I think. Well, I have no idea who you are, and can see you don't know who I am.

What is your constitutional right, exactly?

Let's see. The 2A is a limit of the Federal Government, not an empowerment for the citizens.

The Federal govt may not prevent individuals from owning weapons, or being in the militia.

The latter they solved easily. They made the National Guard with the Dick Act and then proceeded to make a completely useless "unorganized militia", which all men are in, and woman can pretend to be in it too. So no one can complain they're not in the militia any more, so you have your right to bear arms protected by having it so weak it's pointless.

The right to keep arms is different. The US govt cannot prevent you having a gun. However it can prevent you having THAT GUN or THIS GUN, it can ban certain types of guns, it can ban SAMs, it can ban tanks, it can ban assault rifles (hence why the Supreme Court can't be bothered with this sort of thing and upheld Presser and Miller), as long as you can get your hands on guns at a decent price, then the US govt hasn't done anything unconstitutional.

Wait. . . so, the "bad Government" that the founders wanted us to have the right to form militias to defend ourselves against not only has the right to decide who the "officers" of the Militias will be. . . . but that same "bad Government" has the final word on what "guns" the people are allowed to have and use while in the Militia as well?

Are you in a State or community that has recently legalized recreational weed by any chance?

Thanks for your silence on the above.

I will be sleeping well tonight.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

An enema may help your disposition.....LOL

Maybe removing your head from your limp dick ass would help you instead?

Repeatedly PWNED in his own thread.

I (almost) feel sorry for him.

Well you have to remember those like the OP'er believe the Second Amendment is no longer needed and the Constitution is just another piece of paper to wipe their ass with.

My favorite response of the night in another thread was by one poster telling me they want a country with no mass murders in it, and yet when pointed out the last assault weapon ban did nothing to solve that problem the wanker crawled off with their tail between their legs.

Idiots that believe the Second Amendment is outdated or need to be removed are the same idiots that believe the Government can not do any wrong as long as their political party is in power.

They call for stuff like Assault Weapon Ban, Patriot Act and repealing of the Second Amendment but they would throw a fit if I was for repealing the 26th Amendment or the 19th Amendment.

All the OP'er is doing is playing right into the Terrorist hands and is too stupid to know that because the Orlando Killer did what he did while using the laws was the terrorist way to get knee jerking slack jaw morons to start calling for more gun control because the terrorist knows it will not stop them but will limit the average citizen.

Oh well the reality is this subject is moot right now because the House and Senate will do nothing and even when the Democratic Party had the power to do something they did nothing as usual and waited until it could be used as another wedge issue.

It is like the immigration debate and how the left love to point out the right refusal to pass anything and yet why didn't the Democratic Party Pass a bill between 2009 to 2011 to address that issue?

Simple, and you guess it a wedge issue that they want for every election year like the damn gun debate...

 

[Chuz Life]

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

An enema may help your disposition.....LOL

Maybe removing your head from your limp dick ass would help you instead?

Repeatedly PWNED in his own thread.

I (almost) feel sorry for him.

Well you have to remember those like the OP'er believe the Second Amendment is no longer needed and the Constitution is just another piece of paper to wipe their ass with.

My favorite response of the night in another thread was by one poster telling me they want a country with no mass murders in it, and yet when pointed out the last assault weapon ban did nothing to solve that problem the wanker crawled off with their tail between their legs.

Idiots that believe the Second Amendment is outdated or need to be removed are the same idiots that believe the Government can not do any wrong as long as their political party is in power.

They call for stuff like Assault Weapon Ban, Patriot Act and repealing of the Second Amendment but they would throw a fit if I was for repealing the 26th Amendment or the 19th Amendment.

All the OP'er is doing is playing right into the Terrorist hands and is too stupid to know that because the Orlando Killer did what he did while using the laws was the terrorist way to get knee jerking slack jaw morons to start calling for more gun control because the terrorist knows it will not stop them but will limit the average citizen.

Oh well the reality is this subject is moot right now because the House and Senate will do nothing and even when the Democratic Party had the power to do something they did nothing as usual and waited until it could be used as another wedge issue.

It is like the immigration debate and how the left love to point out the right refusal to pass anything and yet why didn't the Democratic Party Pass a bill between 2009 to 2011 to address that issue?

Simple, and you guess it a wedge issue that they want for every election year like the damn gun debate...

Very well said.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Isn't it amazing how, when the explanation for the 2nd is right there in its text, people try harder and harder to make believe it's not there, and pretend they need to find some other reason?

Wrong.......The 2nd amendment is poorly written and vague....prompting 2 centuries of discord and challenges.....Of course, the wording is simple and appeals to simple minds.

to you it is.....i think its pretty dam clear.....and you did a poor job of answering the question i asked.....it was vague.....

 

[nat4900]

The States were the ones with the foresight, not the founders.

In other words, the Founders didn't belong to any states? Why didn't we then have 13 little separate countries?...Gee, let;s keep this up and we can ALL rewrite history to best suit our biases.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why don't you move to a country that fit your Progressive views instead?

Do you even own a gun?

I have moved to such a country....and YES for the second question.

What kind of Gun?

Nerf.....

China, Russia and Cartels threaten this country daily but please keep on focusing there is no threat at our borders or within it either.

True....and that is why us "leftists" RELY on some redneck from Alabama to defend us from China, Russia and Cartels.........I mean, we don't trust our troops, our navy and our air force......the real defense is that guy in Alabama.......Are we placing too much faith on that guy?

Well they used to use "that guy" in the militias in wars, then decided that wasn't working, and so went for the National Guard.

Well it does not matter because even Nancy Pelosi will not even entertain those like you and the OP'er when it come to changing the Second Amendment, and what a terrorist she is!

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

So, you've decided you know me, and you know what I think. Well, I have no idea who you are, and can see you don't know who I am.

What is your constitutional right, exactly?

Let's see. The 2A is a limit of the Federal Government, not an empowerment for the citizens.

The Federal govt may not prevent individuals from owning weapons, or being in the militia.

The latter they solved easily. They made the National Guard with the Dick Act and then proceeded to make a completely useless "unorganized militia", which all men are in, and woman can pretend to be in it too. So no one can complain they're not in the militia any more, so you have your right to bear arms protected by having it so weak it's pointless.

The right to keep arms is different. The US govt cannot prevent you having a gun. However it can prevent you having THAT GUN or THIS GUN, it can ban certain types of guns, it can ban SAMs, it can ban tanks, it can ban assault rifles (hence why the Supreme Court can't be bothered with this sort of thing and upheld Presser and Miller), as long as you can get your hands on guns at a decent price, then the US govt hasn't done anything unconstitutional.

Wait. . . so, the "bad Government" that the founders wanted us to have the right to form militias to defend ourselves against not only has the right to decide who the "officers" of the Militias will be. . . . but that same "bad Government" has the final word on what "guns" the people are allowed to have and use while in the Militia as well?

Are you in a State or community that has recently legalized recreational weed by any chance?

Nope.

 

[nat4900]

It is like the immigration debate and how the left love to point out the right refusal to pass anything and yet why didn't the Democratic Party Pass a bill between 2009 to 2011 to address that issue?

Simple, and you guess it a wedge issue that they want for every election year like the damn gun debate..

Two issues emerge based on what thi moron wrote above......

One....It is up to democrats to pass sane gun laws....republicans are just in congress to get orangy tans or shout "you lie" from the rafters.

Two, the Orlando shooter should have waited until AFTER the election, so as to not upset the sensibilities of right wingers during a campaign.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We are all slaves to big government but these Libtard Moon Bats are too stupid to understand it.

Yes, we RELY on your superior wisdom.....By the way, when does the revolution start to overthrow the government??? I have already made plans for this weekend but for something as important as your revolution I can change them

(what an )

Do you own a Gun?

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

One need not ‘own a gun’ to express his views and opinions concerning the Second Amendment; and that one might not own a gun in no way undermines his views and opinions.

is that an ad hoc fallacy?.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course not, the notion is nonsense.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

A minority of Americans can’t subjectively decide that the Federal government has suddenly become ‘tyrannical’ and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government, contrary to the will of the majority.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, and the government cannot be ‘overthrown’ by force absent the consent of the majority of the people.

That’s why the Heller Court ruled that the Second Amendment right was an individual – not collective – right, and not dependent upon the militia.

Citizens have the individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense, where the states may not seek to prohibit citizens from indeed possessing firearms.

The Second Amendment right allows citizens to protect themselves from lawlessness, violence, and bodily harm through criminal acts, not ‘overthrow’ the government.

The 1st amendment (especially in conjunction with the 2nd amendment) secures the people's right to "assemble" and to form "militias" to maintain the "security" of their free States.

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

2. "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."

No, the First Amendment allows people to assemble to petition the government.

The whole point of that clause is so people can tell the government what they think.

The Presser case in the 1800s didn't say that men had a right to assemble armed together as a military force. This makes no sense.

The Founding Fathers had the contradiction of they wanted the people to be able to overthrow a bad government but didn't want good government to be overthrown.

ALL MILITIAS that are in the Constitution have officers APPOINTED BY THE STATES. Without a state appointed officer, the militia is not the militia in the US constitution and has no protections whatsoever.

Of course it's my bed time and I don';t have time for a lengthy debate on this but, you are incorrect when you read the BOR's to conclude that we "the people" only have a right to assemble to petition the government. (you are wrong when you conclude that we don't have the right to form militias)

You acknowledge the fact that the founders "wanted the people to be able to overthrow a bad government" and I appreciate that. But! To then suggest that that same "bad government" gets to "appoint the officers" for the militias that are being formed to overthrow that "bad government?"

That is ridiculous.

I think you might want to think that through again.

Well, I didn't say the people only have the right to assemble to petition the government. I said this was the reason it was in the Constitution. Just because something isn't protected by a constitutional right, doesn't mean you can't do it.


The point being that the STATES appoint the officers, not the Federal government. Thereby stating that if the Feds have overreached their position, that the States are the ones who are basically going to organize the militias.

And what about when the State and the Federal Governments are (tyrannically) in collusion with each other against the "people?"

What then?

Well then you're fucked, aren't you.

If you've managed to sit idly by and have done nothing up until this point, then there's a problem anyway.

Then the people can take up arms against the govt. Even with state governments appointing officers it's still ILLEGAL to fight against the Federal Government. So, if it's you v. state and federal governments, it's still illegal and doesn't really matter anyway.

What happens is, like the Civil War, the strongest wins.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Buy more guns and ammo, it's the American thing to do

Well Obama has been the best gun salesman in the history of the world.

Oh please..... this is nonsense. There are people who are making claims about Obama and have been since BEFORE he was president that he's somehow going to take away all guns. 7 1/2 years later and what?