Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why doesn't it? Do we want voters that cannot be trusted defend themselves?
Except the 2A isn't about defending yourselves. But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
DERP
Stalin, you demand that people submit to violence. because you are a thug and a coward. BUT the right to defend ourselves and our families is THE most fundamental of all rights.
A gun in the home is 42 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy, Derp...
The solution is much worse than the problem.
If you had a rabid pit bull that mauled the neighborhood kids, the argument you "need it for protection" would be laughable.
Look, you want absolute power. The ONLY way you will get that is in battle. I get that you're scared. we're smarter and better shots than you evil fucks. But you're going to have to pick up a rifle. You're right to be afraid. But you're party is more than willing to sacrifice your life for their power...
Actually, I regularly qualified as Expert in the military, but if the day ever comes that you gun nuts became a real danger to law and order, the government has tanks...
You lose.
True.Foisting firearms as a civil rights issue isn't the goal here. One can not compartementalize civil rights issues down to ONE, w/o consideration to all others.
~S~
True.Foisting firearms as a civil rights issue isn't the goal here. One can not compartementalize civil rights issues down to ONE, w/o consideration to all others.
~S~
And the notion that the possession of firearms has anything to do with ‘protecting freedom’ is as ridiculous as it is wrongheaded.
There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority of citizens subjectively and incorrectly perceives that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’
DERP
Stalin, you demand that people submit to violence. because you are a thug and a coward. BUT the right to defend ourselves and our families is THE most fundamental of all rights.
A gun in the home is 42 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy, Derp...
The solution is much worse than the problem.
If you had a rabid pit bull that mauled the neighborhood kids, the argument you "need it for protection" would be laughable.
Look, you want absolute power. The ONLY way you will get that is in battle. I get that you're scared. we're smarter and better shots than you evil fucks. But you're going to have to pick up a rifle. You're right to be afraid. But you're party is more than willing to sacrifice your life for their power...
Actually, I regularly qualified as Expert in the military, but if the day ever comes that you gun nuts became a real danger to law and order, the government has tanks...
You lose.
He has no principles...Crazy people do awful things both with and without guns. Why not lock up the crazy people?
Because I don't want to live in a police state...
do you?
The individual right to bear arms is a clear Constitutional right, as the SCOTUS reiterated in DC v. Heller.
The right to vote is not. If you disagree, post the Article, Section and Paragraph granting a general right to vote.
blah, blah, blah... nobody found a right to a gun in the Second until Crazy Tony Scalia came along.
The Second is about Militias, not guns.
Restrictions based upon "need" are unconstitutional. The others? Perhaps, but those are not the venue of the federal government.
Until it is.
Actually, there's a whole lot of ways the Feds can fuck with the gun industry.
Top of my list, repeal the idiotic law that holds gun sellers blameless. Betcha when a few mass shooting families clean out a few gun sellers, they are going to be REALLY KEEN on making sure the nuts don't get them.
The second thing I'd do is let the gun sellers know if they are irresponsible in their sales, they don't get government contracts. Since the Government is a bigger customer than Crazy McShooty, they'll change their tactics really fast.
Some say you cannot fix stupid. With you, I do not know whether we're talking ignorance or stupidity. I'm almost positive that I cannot possibly be the first to make this argument, but yes owning a firearm is a Right. Just in case nobody told you, this is a road map to understanding the Right:
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
That is what we call a FOUNDING PRINCIPLE. Are you with me? With regard to the Declaration of Independence, this what the SCOTUS has ruled:
"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
So you have unalienable Rights. These are Rights that are above the reach of the government. How have the courts ruled on this? Well, let us go back to high school civics. As you know, there are only a couple of instances where the SCOTUS gets to be the first court of original jurisdiction. So, the early state courts interpreted the Second Amendment. Here is how they 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...”
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251
"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, at 401-402 (1859)
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878) - This information was copied and pasted from The Resistance Manual
Okay, we know how the state courts ruled. And, we know that the SCOTUS upheld this interpretation. For example:
"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 U.S. 542 (1876) So, here's the deal:
The above case, is the FIRST ruling the SCOTUS made interpreting the Second Amendment. Where gun owners and people as yourself disagree are on the points wherein the courts and SCOTUS have REINTERPRETED those earliest precedents. Even in Heller, the Court ruled you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. But, all the anti-gun rulings after Cruikshank that over-rule that are questionable. George Washington warned:
"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 Courts have had the POWER to reinterpret the Constitution since then, but they certainly lacked the AUTHORITY. So, legitimately a person cannot be deprived of a Right. Once they paid their debt to society and have been released, they should retain ALL their Rights... otherwise NO Right is safe. Either they are given by your Creator or they are doled out by government. Which is it?
There are. That’s why they do time, and pay restitution.No free man should be kept disarmed.
If we can not trust him in public with a tool, keep him in prison.
.
There are, and need to be, penalties for breaking the rules. Otherwise the rules mean nothing.
There are. That’s why they do time, and pay restitution.No free man should be kept disarmed.
If we can not trust him in public with a tool, keep him in prison.
.
There are, and need to be, penalties for breaking the rules. Otherwise the rules mean nothing.
There are. That’s why they do time, and pay restitution.No free man should be kept disarmed.
If we can not trust him in public with a tool, keep him in prison.
.
There are, and need to be, penalties for breaking the rules. Otherwise the rules mean nothing.
Convicted felons should permanently lose the right to vote and to possess firearms as additional penalties for the seriousness of their crimes.
.
more than 2/3Why doesn't it? Do we want voters that cannot be trusted defend themselves?
33,000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries every year...
Only a handful involve "people defending themselves". Most of them are 'some idiot who never should have had a gun hurting themselves or others'.
How many are suicide?
Clearly they did. Their choices of the words “unalienable” , and “shall not be infringed” we’re neither arbitrary, or accidental..."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."
'Shall not be infringed'.
Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.
There are. That’s why they do time, and pay restitution.No free man should be kept disarmed.
If we can not trust him in public with a tool, keep him in prison.
.
There are, and need to be, penalties for breaking the rules. Otherwise the rules mean nothing.
Convicted felons should permanently lose the right to vote and to possess firearms as additional penalties for the seriousness of their crimes.
.
Why? You do realize that the only thing that determines a felony; is that the potential sentence could be more than one year. Which covers a gigantic spectrum of infractions; most of which are non violent. Hell there isn’t even consistency from state to state as to what constitutes a felony. Its quite arbitrary really. Additionally the designation isn’t even made by the “people” themselves, but rather those who profit off of the system.
Our criminal justice system is nonsensical, and broken.
The notion that an 18 year old who wrote a bad check for more than $500 should be stripped of his privilege to vote, and the right to defend himself, his family, and his property with a modern weapon; 1, 5, 25 years after serving his time is beyond absurd.
Therin lies one of the great many failures of our criminal justice system...There are. That’s why they do time, and pay restitution.No free man should be kept disarmed.
If we can not trust him in public with a tool, keep him in prison.
.
There are, and need to be, penalties for breaking the rules. Otherwise the rules mean nothing.
Convicted felons should permanently lose the right to vote and to possess firearms as additional penalties for the seriousness of their crimes.
.
Why? You do realize that the only thing that determines a felony; is that the potential sentence could be more than one year. Which covers a gigantic spectrum of infractions; most of which are non violent. Hell there isn’t even consistency from state to state as to what constitutes a felony. Its quite arbitrary really. Additionally the designation isn’t even made by the “people” themselves, but rather those who profit off of the system.
Our criminal justice system is nonsensical, and broken.
The notion that an 18 year old who wrote a bad check for more than $500 should be stripped of his privilege to vote, and the right to defend himself, his family, and his property with a modern weapon; 1, 5, 25 years after serving his time is beyond absurd.
It's the possibility of punishment that is the deterrent to crime, not the punishment itself.
Convicted felons should permanently lose the right to vote and to possess firearms as additional penalties for the seriousness of their crimes.
Violent felons should be removed altogether.
.
There are. That’s why they do time, and pay restitution.No free man should be kept disarmed.
If we can not trust him in public with a tool, keep him in prison.
.
There are, and need to be, penalties for breaking the rules. Otherwise the rules mean nothing.
Convicted felons should permanently lose the right to vote and to possess firearms as additional penalties for the seriousness of their crimes.
Violent felons should be removed altogether.
.
Crazy people do awful things both with and without guns. Why not lock up the crazy people?
Because I don't want to live in a police state...
do you?
The individual right to bear arms is a clear Constitutional right, as the SCOTUS reiterated in DC v. Heller.
The right to vote is not. If you disagree, post the Article, Section and Paragraph granting a general right to vote.
blah, blah, blah... nobody found a right to a gun in the Second until Crazy Tony Scalia came along.
The Second is about Militias, not guns.
Restrictions based upon "need" are unconstitutional. The others? Perhaps, but those are not the venue of the federal government.
Until it is.
Actually, there's a whole lot of ways the Feds can fuck with the gun industry.
Top of my list, repeal the idiotic law that holds gun sellers blameless. Betcha when a few mass shooting families clean out a few gun sellers, they are going to be REALLY KEEN on making sure the nuts don't get them.
The second thing I'd do is let the gun sellers know if they are irresponsible in their sales, they don't get government contracts. Since the Government is a bigger customer than Crazy McShooty, they'll change their tactics really fast.
Some say you cannot fix stupid. With you, I do not know whether we're talking ignorance or stupidity. I'm almost positive that I cannot possibly be the first to make this argument, but yes owning a firearm is a Right. Just in case nobody told you, this is a road map to understanding the Right:
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
That is what we call a FOUNDING PRINCIPLE. Are you with me? With regard to the Declaration of Independence, this what the SCOTUS has ruled:
"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
So you have unalienable Rights. These are Rights that are above the reach of the government. How have the courts ruled on this? Well, let us go back to high school civics. As you know, there are only a couple of instances where the SCOTUS gets to be the first court of original jurisdiction. So, the early state courts interpreted the Second Amendment. Here is how they 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...”
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251
"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, at 401-402 (1859)
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878) - This information was copied and pasted from The Resistance Manual
Okay, we know how the state courts ruled. And, we know that the SCOTUS upheld this interpretation. For example:
"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 U.S. 542 (1876) So, here's the deal:
The above case, is the FIRST ruling the SCOTUS made interpreting the Second Amendment. Where gun owners and people as yourself disagree are on the points wherein the courts and SCOTUS have REINTERPRETED those earliest precedents. Even in Heller, the Court ruled you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. But, all the anti-gun rulings after Cruikshank that over-rule that are questionable. George Washington warned:
"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 Courts have had the POWER to reinterpret the Constitution since then, but they certainly lacked the AUTHORITY. So, legitimately a person cannot be deprived of a Right. Once they paid their debt to society and have been released, they should retain ALL their Rights... otherwise NO Right is safe. Either they are given by your Creator or they are doled out by government. Which is it?
There are. That’s why they do time, and pay restitution.No free man should be kept disarmed.
If we can not trust him in public with a tool, keep him in prison.
.
There are, and need to be, penalties for breaking the rules. Otherwise the rules mean nothing.
Convicted felons should permanently lose the right to vote and to possess firearms as additional penalties for the seriousness of their crimes.
Violent felons should be removed altogether.
.
Why?
What interest of society is served by making every crime a life sentence? Took a piss on the side of the road at 18, but forever stripped of rights? That is something I would expect from the Stalinist democrats.
"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."
It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.
Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.
