Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

We did, we now have 50, I guess you don't understand the concept of a federation. It was the Sovereign States that created the feds, they agreed to cede limited sovereignty to the feds and granted them powers to perform the functions agreed to by the States, the 9th and 10th amendments were mere reinforcements of this concept and were also insisted upon by the STATES. The anti-federalist lost at the convention but have been granted a belated victory by the very court systems the federalist created, thus we have the feds consistently encroaching more and more on State sovereignty. We now live in a post constitutional America and we are the worse for it.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

The 2nd amendment was the founder's way to insure the people's rights as individuals to keep and to bear arms so that if and when the time comes for us to "unfuck" ourselves against a tyrannical government. . . We can.

 

[Skull Pilot]

ok the well regulated militia in the first half,we know what that means.....so who were the "people" mentioned in the second half?....because they are the ones mentioned who the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

The semantics for this poorly phrased amendment boils down to this....A "militia" is not a lifeless entity...it is indeed comprised of "people".

The intent of the O/P was not to deride the 2nd amendment....but only to offer some plausible other explanation for its inclusion, rather than having the NRA define it for us.

The framers expected people to organize to defend themselves from any threat to their safety and liberty. Today people like you expect the government to keep them safe and you think you have the right to tell everyone else that they should just let the government be in charge of their safety too.

Sorry but there are still people who won't lie down and be victimized and just hope the cops show up in time or at all

 

[Crixus]

"Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment"

...are moot after Heller/McDonald.

Awesome to live in a country where you can express your opinion eh? That's the first amendment in action. The second amendment gives the first it's teeth.

 

[320 Years of History]

The Right To Bear Arms
A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation
By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.

The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.

People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:

"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."In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:"to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."

We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.

Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."

Let's look at the history.

First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.

The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.

When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.

The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.

Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.

In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?

These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.

 

[Picaro]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

Screw all the drama and legalistic hair-splitting. The Founders intent was delineating the limitations on the Federal government, and the states were free to make their own legislative codes on gun control. The individual colonies had gun control laws, the individual states had them after the Constitution was drafted and adopted. It's tough that ideologues on both sides can't claim supremacy or being 'the right side' based on the historical facts, but get over it already, or just take more Prozac to make it go away or something.

Extensive collection of court decisions, by state, and lots more:

Primary Historical Sources

Also see the Militia Statutes of the various states on the linked page.

Also has a couple of articles on the racist roots of gun control in there somewhere on his site; ironically the current Democrats are shrieking for gun control for blatantly racist reasons as well ...

 

[Flash]

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.

If you are too chickenshit to own a firearm then that is fine but you should simply mind your own business and leave your opinions on the right to keep and bear arms to those that have the courage to embrace the liberty.

You have no right to infringe upon the Constitutional liberties of those who enjoy the liberties.

That would be like a hateful atheist telling somebody else that they can't enjoy freedom of religion because the atheist doesn't believe in religion.

 

[nat4900]

We did, we now have 50, I guess you don't understand the concept of a federation. It was the Sovereign States that created the feds, they agreed to cede limited sovereignty to the feds and granted them powers to perform the functions agreed to by the States, the 9th and 10th amendments were mere reinforcements of this concept and were also insisted upon by the STATES. The anti-federalist lost at the convention but have been granted a belated victory by the very court systems the federalist created, thus we have the feds consistently encroaching more and more on State sovereignty. We now live in a post constitutional America and we are the worse for it.

Yet another "the south shall rise again" post....

 

[Chuz Life]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

Screw all the drama and legalistic hair-splitting. The Founders intent was delineating the limitations the Federal government, and the states were free to make their own legislative codes on gun control. the individual colonies had gun control laws, the individual states had them after the Constitution was drafted and adopted. It's tough that ideologues on both sides can't claim supremacy or being 'the right side' based on the historical facts, but get over it already, or just take more Prozac to make it go away or something.

So, what became of all those early "gun control laws" when the country fell into civil war and citizens on both sides (north and south) were using not only the military rifles of their day but also cannons and other Military weapons to kill one another?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An armed population was vital to protect against both foreign threats and the threat of a standing army, which could become an instrument of governmental tyranny."

So, your conclusion is that the Supreme Court was trying to ward off the possible "tyranny" from a democratically-elected, representative, 3-tiered government such as ours?

From a completely corrupt Deep State run government, yes

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The 2nd amendment was the founder's way to insure the people's rights as individuals to keep and to bear arms so that if and when the time comes for us to "unfuck" ourselves against a tyrannical government. . . We can.

Yes, I know.

 

[Picaro]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

Screw all the drama and legalistic hair-splitting. The Founders intent was delineating the limitations the Federal government, and the states were free to make their own legislative codes on gun control. the individual colonies had gun control laws, the individual states had them after the Constitution was drafted and adopted. It's tough that ideologues on both sides can't claim supremacy or being 'the right side' based on the historical facts, but get over it already, or just take more Prozac to make it go away or something.

So, what became of all those early "gun control laws" when the country fell into civil war and citizens on both sides (north and south) were using not only the military rifles of their day but also cannons and other Military weapons to kill one another?

Don't know what your point is here re my post. As for the Civil War it's simple; the North's Lincoln followers seceded from the Union and then invaded the South in order to loot it and force it into the new regime. What has that got to do with the historical gun control articles and statutes I linked to?

 

[nat4900]

Today people like you expect the government to keep them safe and you think you have the right to tell everyone else that they should just let the government be in charge of their safety too.

Yes....sorry that I missed your little get together, anti-government rally where you showed everyone there how to organize themselves to fight off those federal thugs in black boots coming to take our guns away......When's the next one?......LOL

 

[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.

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?

Firearm sales have skyrocket during Obama's administration and that is because of his anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit that has Americans concerned about their Constitutional rights.

If the jackass would have just keep his mouth shut there would probably would have been a few million less firearms sold.

If America makes the same mistake by electing that bitch Crooked Hillary as it made electing that idiot Obama then you haven't seen nuthin yet when it come to firearm sales.

 

[Picaro]

ok the well regulated militia in the first half,we know what that means.....so who were the "people" mentioned in the second half?....because they are the ones mentioned who the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

The semantics for this poorly phrased amendment boils down to this....A "militia" is not a lifeless entity...it is indeed comprised of "people".

The intent of the O/P was not to deride the 2nd amendment....but only to offer some plausible other explanation for its inclusion, rather than having the NRA define it for us.

The framers expected people to organize to defend themselves from any threat to their safety and liberty. Today people like you expect the government to keep them safe and you think you have the right to tell everyone else that they should just let the government be in charge of their safety too.

Sorry but there are still people who won't lie down and be victimized and just hope the cops show up in time or at all

IMO the whole 'original intent' grab ass is meaningless semantics, it's the existential reality of American life that matters, and you are correct, individuals do indeed have a basic right to self-defense, and the right to acquire the means to do so in the face of how unreliable law enforcement is for most people.

And, given the fact that with so many millions of firearms out there in private hands and the vast majority of legal firearms owners are responsible citizens and creating almost none of the mayhem and murders and the like, there is no clear and present need for ridiculous feel good legislation that hampers or harasses legal citizens and non-criminals while doing zero to restrain or hamper criminals using them. It's ridiculous cognitively dissonant for the hacks on the faux 'left' to run around gibbering for 'open borders' and then gibbering inanely about 'gun control' being a viable action; it's butt stupid and insane, frankly.

 

[Flash]

[Q

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?

Obama tried to take firearms away from the Ameircan people but Congress wouldn't go along with it.

The first two years of his administration when he had the filthy ass destructive Democrat Congress his focus was on raiding the treasury for his special interest and welfare queens and didn't pursue gun control. After that it was too late.

 

[nat4900]

Firearm sales have skyrocket during Obama's administration and that is because of his anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit that has Americans concerned about their Constitutional rights.

Yes, morons.....like you.....have bought into the marketing strategies of the NRA....You are OWNED !!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Today people like you expect the government to keep them safe and you think you have the right to tell everyone else that they should just let the government be in charge of their safety too.

Yes....sorry that I missed your little get together, anti-government rally where you showed everyone there how to organize themselves to fight off those federal thugs in black boots coming to take our guns away......When's the next one?......LOL

There you go again listening to the voices in your head instead of reading what I wrote.

Where did I mention fighting federal thugs or that they were taking away people's guns?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Firearm sales have skyrocket during Obama's administration and that is because of his anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit that has Americans concerned about their Constitutional rights.

You are full blown stupid aren't ya?

What gun confiscation law has Obama had passed? And which party has been pandering g to the gun nutters with Bullshit like you write? When you can answer that question you will know who the marketer has been for the gun industry.

And it ain't Obama. All Obama is guilty of is trying to keep more Americans safe from crazies with a easily obtained gun. How fucking awful is that? Obama doesn't even want your kids or friends gunned down by a crazy person with a brand new AR15.

Damned Obama. Maybe he should.rethink that.

 

[Picaro]

Today people like you expect the government to keep them safe and you think you have the right to tell everyone else that they should just let the government be in charge of their safety too.

Yes....sorry that I missed your little get together, anti-government rally where you showed everyone there how to organize themselves to fight off those federal thugs in black boots coming to take our guns away......When's the next one?......LOL

There you go again listening to the voices in your head instead of reading what I wrote.

Where did I mention fighting federal thugs or that they were taking away people's guns?

the ideologues just have to follow the memorized narrative they've been told to repeat; anything said that doesn't fit into their tropes and memes just doesn't compute, and makes them start waving their arms around shouting "Danger! Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! ..."