Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Moonglow]

---
Before the "why" & "what" is the intent of the writers during their era.
.

Uh....no genius. Their intent was "the right of the people". Which is why they said "the right of the people".

---
The intent was to maintain "the security of a free state" and "A well regulated militia being necessary"
was how that intent was achieved during that era.
.

The security of a free state meant that the citizenry had the means to protect itself from a tyrannical government. The intent was made very clear in other writings by the Framers of the Constitution.
The Lessons Of History - The Founding Fathers On Right To Bear Arms

The 2nd Amendment does not have a but or an except for anywhere in it. If you believe the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringe means it can then the only thing to do is get together with all of the other gun control wackadoodles and call for a constitutional amendment. I doubt you'll get many Representatives stupid enough to bring it up for a vote and you damn sure won't get many votes at the State level so shit out of luck doesn't quiet cover it.

Exactly. The second was put there EXPRESSELY for the purpose of (1) Defense of ones property and family and (2) to be used to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Problem is? Liberals do NOT believe in personal defense and they abhore the idea of "standing up" to the government - the same central government that feeds them.

There are also a few qoutes from the founding Fathers about personal defence of ones home and family out there. It is your right and duty to protect you and yours. The police no longer provent crimes so much as investigate the aftermath.

I should really start myself a link list to all of the articles and qoutes. I know Liberals won't look them up.

A cop's job has never been to be the cavalry riding over the hill to save the day, they are simply a reactionary unit..

 

[PK1]

...
If she is in charge of appointing judges to the SC, we are all screwed.

---
Let it be, let it be ...

I look forward to criminals & gun fanatics getting "screwed".

Let me make it clear; I support normal citizens being able to keep/bear normal arms, but the gun fanatics don't get my vote.
.

And why is that and who gets to decide who is a gun fanatic and who isn't?

---
The people decide via their reps (this is a Republic), and SCOTUS interprets the Constitution with today's reality.

A gun fanatic could construct a fully automatic short rifle and use the deadliest bullets. My vote says that's not OK in my society. Go to an island for fanatics!
An arms fanatic may play with plastic explosives. Not in my neighborhood!
.

 

[P@triot]

The fact that you even think that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to determine what the Constitution means shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.

And the notion that Supreme Court rulings manifest as ‘making laws from the bench’ is consistent with your overall ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And if you actually got an adult to read the Constitution for you, you would see no where does it authorize the judicial branch to create "case law" and replace actual law with it.

And if you were still confused by the Constitution (as you clearly are), all you would have to do is read the original writings of our founders. They were very clear that they only one they wanted creating law was the large legislative body made up of hundreds of representatives because it was the voice of the people. They did not want an unelected oligarchy deciding for the American people.

It's a simple fact that you are ignorant of because you're too lazy to read the U.S. Constitution and the original writings of our founders.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

...
If she is in charge of appointing judges to the SC, we are all screwed.

---
Let it be, let it be ...

I look forward to criminals & gun fanatics getting "screwed".

Let me make it clear; I support normal citizens being able to keep/bear normal arms, but the gun fanatics don't get my vote.
.

And why is that and who gets to decide who is a gun fanatic and who isn't?

---
The people decide via their reps (this is a Republic), and SCOTUS interprets the Constitution with today's reality.

A gun fanatic could construct a fully automatic short rifle and use the deadliest bullets. My vote says that's not OK in my society. Go to an island for fanatics!
An arms fanatic may play with plastic explosives. Not in my neighborhood!
.

Correct, "Your" vote.

Others like Joe B would consider a fanatic a person that has over three different types of (legal) guns and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

 

[P@triot]

The people decide via their reps (this is a Republic), and SCOTUS interprets the Constitution with today's reality.

A gun fanatic could construct a fully automatic short rifle and use the deadliest bullets. My vote says that's not OK in my society. Go to an island for fanatics!
An arms fanatic may play with plastic explosives. Not in my neighborhood!

Exactly. And you were defeated by a large majority that voted it was ok in our society. The problem with liberals is that they are a bunch of immature, petulant children that can't accept that they lost.

The U.S. Constitution trumps your desires at this point. If the American people agree with your absurd and radical view, then they will amend the U.S. Constitution. Until that time, you're just rambling lunatic much like Ted Kaczynski.

 

[PK1]

Bombs are not arms, and nobody needs a bomb for self-defense.

---
Apparently, English is not your strong point.
ARMS:
"weapons and ammunition; armaments."
.

We already have laws in place regarding those types of "arms." Thanks. Lol.

---
That's my point. The 2nd Amendment says we can keep/bear arms, but they can be regulated.
.

 

[P@triot]

A gun fanatic could construct a fully automatic short rifle and use the deadliest bullets. My vote says that's not OK in my society.

My vote says that it is ok in my society. I won. You lost. More people voted like me than voted like you. Put your big boy pants on and deal with it.

 

[ChrisL]

This doesn't even make sense. For one thing, if you push guns into the illegal market, they would be twice as difficult to trace. There would be no "background checks" or other such measures. Your argument is weak sauce.

Anyone found with a gun and not allowed to would go break rocks for ten years. They'll get the message in no time.

You mean like they do now? You are aware of course that your liberal judges do NOT in fact send criminals to jail for long over firearms possession?

You are aware, of course, that this is a ridiculous lie.

Plenty of people convicted of crimes involving guns don't serve the sentences they deserve. It's because of liberal "bleeding hearts" for the wrong people that they are allowed out early to victimize again and again. That's just one reason why we have such a huge problem with gang crime in our inner cities, like Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc., etc., etc.

Plea bargaining and lawyers all play the same games..But it's not liberals...

Okay, bleeding heart "people" whose hearts bleed for the wrong people. Better?

 

[P@triot]

Otherwise this fails as a bandwagon fallacy.

You should know. After spending several years failing big time as a "bandwagon fallacy", you should be able to identify it better than anyone

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

---
Before the "why" & "what" is the intent of the writers during their era.
.

Uh....no genius. Their intent was "the right of the people". Which is why they said "the right of the people".

---
The intent was to maintain "the security of a free state" and "A well regulated militia being necessary"
was how that intent was achieved during that era.
.

The security of a free state meant that the citizenry had the means to protect itself from a tyrannical government. The intent was made very clear in other writings by the Framers of the Constitution.
The Lessons Of History - The Founding Fathers On Right To Bear Arms

The 2nd Amendment does not have a but or an except for anywhere in it. If you believe the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringe means it can then the only thing to do is get together with all of the other gun control wackadoodles and call for a constitutional amendment. I doubt you'll get many Representatives stupid enough to bring it up for a vote and you damn sure won't get many votes at the State level so shit out of luck doesn't quiet cover it.

Exactly. The second was put there EXPRESSELY for the purpose of (1) Defense of ones property and family and (2) to be used to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Problem is? Liberals do NOT believe in personal defense and they abhore the idea of "standing up" to the government - the same central government that feeds them.

There are also a few qoutes from the founding Fathers about personal defence of ones home and family out there. It is your right and duty to protect you and yours. The police no longer provent crimes so much as investigate the aftermath.

I should really start myself a link list to all of the articles and qoutes. I know Liberals won't look them up.

Wrong.

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, liberals own guns for self-defense, and liberals correctly understand that government may enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

"Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms"

God/gods had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Try the Constitution's "founding fathers".

If we were made to need guns in addition to arms, God would have provided Adam a gun.

If man creates lethal weapons, he & family will die with lethal weapons.
A civilized society does not need lethal weapons for its normal citizens.
.

the Jews and political opponents in Germany in the 1920s agreed with you completely....by 1939 they disagreed with you completely...as they were being loaded into train cars for the gas chambers.......

Liberals will tell you that tyranny can not happen here like it has everywhere else in the world. I think its funny when I here it. Apparently that's the only thing a Liberal believe is special about the US.

I wonder how many of them know how close we came to being the Kingdom of the United States after the Revolutionary War that's what a bunch of Military officers wanted. If they had won out it would have Been
King George I instead of President Washington.

 

[ChrisL]

Uh....no genius. Their intent was "the right of the people". Which is why they said "the right of the people".

---
The intent was to maintain "the security of a free state" and "A well regulated militia being necessary"
was how that intent was achieved during that era.
.

The security of a free state meant that the citizenry had the means to protect itself from a tyrannical government. The intent was made very clear in other writings by the Framers of the Constitution.
The Lessons Of History - The Founding Fathers On Right To Bear Arms

The 2nd Amendment does not have a but or an except for anywhere in it. If you believe the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringe means it can then the only thing to do is get together with all of the other gun control wackadoodles and call for a constitutional amendment. I doubt you'll get many Representatives stupid enough to bring it up for a vote and you damn sure won't get many votes at the State level so shit out of luck doesn't quiet cover it.

Exactly. The second was put there EXPRESSELY for the purpose of (1) Defense of ones property and family and (2) to be used to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Problem is? Liberals do NOT believe in personal defense and they abhore the idea of "standing up" to the government - the same central government that feeds them.

There are also a few qoutes from the founding Fathers about personal defence of ones home and family out there. It is your right and duty to protect you and yours. The police no longer provent crimes so much as investigate the aftermath.

I should really start myself a link list to all of the articles and qoutes. I know Liberals won't look them up.

Wrong.

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, liberals own guns for self-defense, and liberals correctly understand that government may enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And the title of the thread is? . . . .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Never going to happen here in America. Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.

Guns will be a thing of the past one day, since they already mostly are.

Really? What country do you live in?

Country? How about year? I live in 2016, not 1816.

Yes, 2016, and in 2016, many Americans are armed and more interest in carrying firearms; particularly women.

And?

Otherwise this fails as a bandwagon fallacy.

Concealed Carry Among Women Up 'Nearly 62 Percent' in Washington State - Breitbart

Concealed carry among women increasing

More women carrying guns

Women-Only Firearm Training Courses Spike As They Buy Handguns In Record Numbers

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I have to get ready to go out for dinner now! It's been real . . . from some of us anyway.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms"

God/gods had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Try the Constitution's "founding fathers".

If we were made to need guns in addition to arms, God would have provided Adam a gun.

If man creates lethal weapons, he & family will die with lethal weapons.
A civilized society does not need lethal weapons for its normal citizens.
.

the Jews and political opponents in Germany in the 1920s agreed with you completely....by 1939 they disagreed with you completely...as they were being loaded into train cars for the gas chambers.......

Liberals will tell you that tyranny can not happen here like it has everywhere else in the world. I think its funny when I here it. Apparently that's the only thing a Liberal believe is special about the US.

I wonder how many of them know how close we came to being the Kingdom of the United States after the Revolutionary War that's what a bunch of Military officers wanted. If they had won out it would have Been
King George I instead of President Washington.

Everyone wonders if this sort of stupidity and ignorance are typical of most conservatives.

Your posts read like something written by a 12-year-old.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I'm a person who believes in constitutional rights of the American people.

So do I, in general, but that still makes you a nobody.

Nope, you do not. You want to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to defend ourselves from invaders or those who would do us harm.

I want to take away guns. That's all. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.

Never going to happen here in America. Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.

Guns will be a thing of the past one day, since they already mostly are.

Wishing were so ain't going to make it that way.

 

[P@triot]

Liberals will tell you that tyranny can not happen here like it has everywhere else in the world. I think its funny when I here it. Apparently that's the only thing a Liberal believe is special about the US.

I wonder how many of them know how close we came to being the Kingdom of the United States after the Revolutionary War that's what a bunch of Military officers wanted. If they had won out it would have Been
King George I instead of President Washington.

It's funny you say that - I've had that argument with a good friend of mine for years. He's under this bizarre belief that the U.S. has this mystical, magical unicorn power which prevents a military coup (like Iraq did when Saddam Hussein took over) or deteriorate into civil conflict (even though we already had one of those).

It's really sad to see how liberals are just obedient little lapdogs, trained to obey an ideology at all costs. Their refusal to stop and learn anything (especially from history) is just killing this country.

 

[P@triot]

Everyone wonders if this sort of stupidity and ignorance are typical of most conservatives.

Your posts read like something written by a 12-year-old.

And yet it's the majority of society agreeing that you're the unchained lunatic over and over. So what does that tell you? You're in the extreme minority junior. Throw your tantrums all you want, they aren't going to change anything. They just show everyone that you are nothing more than an insolent child.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

"Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms"

God/gods had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Try the Constitution's "founding fathers".

If we were made to need guns in addition to arms, God would have provided Adam a gun.

If man creates lethal weapons, he & family will die with lethal weapons.
A civilized society does not need lethal weapons for its normal citizens.
.

the Jews and political opponents in Germany in the 1920s agreed with you completely....by 1939 they disagreed with you completely...as they were being loaded into train cars for the gas chambers.......

Liberals will tell you that tyranny can not happen here like it has everywhere else in the world. I think its funny when I here it. Apparently that's the only thing a Liberal believe is special about the US.

I wonder how many of them know how close we came to being the Kingdom of the United States after the Revolutionary War that's what a bunch of Military officers wanted. If they had won out it would have Been
King George I instead of President Washington.

Everyone wonders if this sort of stupidity and ignorance are typical of most conservatives.

Your posts read like something written by a 12-year-old.

Says the person who has fallen on insults as a response. Why don't you tell me what is ignorant about my post. Its not the history I know that's true.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Liberals will tell you that tyranny can not happen here like it has everywhere else in the world. I think its funny when I here it. Apparently that's the only thing a Liberal believe is special about the US.

I wonder how many of them know how close we came to being the Kingdom of the United States after the Revolutionary War that's what a bunch of Military officers wanted. If they had won out it would have Been
King George I instead of President Washington.

It's funny you say that - I've had that argument with a good friend of mine for years. He's under this bizarre belief that the U.S. has this mystical, magical unicorn power which prevents a military coup (like Iraq did when Saddam Hussein took over) or deteriorate into civil conflict (even though we already had one of those).

It's really sad to see how liberals are just obedient little lapdogs, trained to obey an ideology at all costs. Their refusal to stop and learn anything (especially from history) is just killing this country.

I'm not so worried about a military coup. The top Brass may try something but the lower ranks will see any order to take over the government as unlawful. maybe with foreign troops they could but I believe the majority of the armed services will tell them to go take a flying leap.

Who really concerns me is the politicians that stay in power for decades and may not want to give it up.