Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[hazlnut]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

The invisible man in the sky has nothing to do with your "rights".

"Rights" are man-made, granted by Governments.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The invisible man in the sky has nothing to do with your "rights".
"Rights" are man-made, granted by Governments.

Said no reasoned, thinking person, ever.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Speaking of law enforcement Frig - I'm baffled as to why you aren't demanding they disarm. I don't get it - if guns are so bad - why do you want them to have guns?

Are you really this fucking stupid?

Why do cops have guns? Is that your question?

To serve and protect American citizens from criminals, thugs, thiefs, murderers, drug dealers and gun nutters that fucking go crazy.

Some people may not want anything to do with guns personally. Doesn't mean they don't think they serve some purpose.

 

[P@triot]

Armed people don't become victims. Unarmed people do. This is pretty basic.

LMAO. Wanna bet? I bet I could, using the element of surprise, put a gun to your head and it wouldn't make any fucking difference how many guns you had on you.

Or do you not leave the house? I know its scary out there for you.

"Using the element of surprise"...

You can't even feed yourself without the government helping you. You're not a ninja junior.

 

[P@triot]

Speaking of law enforcement Frig - I'm baffled as to why you aren't demanding they disarm. I don't get it - if guns are so bad - why do you want them to have guns?

Are you really this fucking stupid? Why do cops have guns? Is that your question?

To serve and protect American citizens from criminals, thugs, thiefs, murderers, drug dealers and gun nutters that fucking go crazy. Some people may not want anything to do with guns personally. Doesn't mean they don't think they serve some purpose.

And that's exactly why I need to be armed, stupid. It's amazing how dumb you people are. It's very easy to get you people to prove our point for us.

 

[ChrisL]

You're the only one here talking about sex! Lol.

You're in real danger CL! She doesn't like our "relationship" at all. I hope you don't own a rabbit. If you do, you might wake up one day to find it boiling on a pot on your stove....

I do own one actually. Leave my bunny out of it!

Oh nooooooooo! Please secure that poor little bunny....Corny is one crazy broad. She'll do it CL.

Nobody could hurt my bunny. He's too cute!

A dear friend of mine once had a lop eared wabbit named Farley. She'd let him out in the privacy fenced back yard. He would spend hours digging a trench next to the fence and behind her rose bushes. It was about 10' on each side of the corner. My friend would fill it in, pack it down and cover it with pine bark and he'd be right back at it the next time he was out.

Lol! I have to keep all the cords in my house hidden behind furniture. I've lost more than one computer cord due to my bunny's chewing fetish.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

You're in real danger CL! She doesn't like our "relationship" at all. I hope you don't own a rabbit. If you do, you might wake up one day to find it boiling on a pot on your stove....

I do own one actually. Leave my bunny out of it!

Oh nooooooooo! Please secure that poor little bunny....Corny is one crazy broad. She'll do it CL.

Nobody could hurt my bunny. He's too cute!

A dear friend of mine once had a lop eared wabbit named Farley. She'd let him out in the privacy fenced back yard. He would spend hours digging a trench next to the fence and behind her rose bushes. It was about 10' on each side of the corner. My friend would fill it in, pack it down and cover it with pine bark and he'd be right back at it the next time he was out.

Lol! I have to keep all the cords in my house hidden behind furniture. I've lost more than one computer cord due to my bunny's chewing fetish.

is it Bare or Bear Arms? what will it be next week? Wolfe Arms?

 

[ChrisL]

I do own one actually. Leave my bunny out of it!

Oh nooooooooo! Please secure that poor little bunny....Corny is one crazy broad. She'll do it CL.

Nobody could hurt my bunny. He's too cute!

A dear friend of mine once had a lop eared wabbit named Farley. She'd let him out in the privacy fenced back yard. He would spend hours digging a trench next to the fence and behind her rose bushes. It was about 10' on each side of the corner. My friend would fill it in, pack it down and cover it with pine bark and he'd be right back at it the next time he was out.

Lol! I have to keep all the cords in my house hidden behind furniture. I've lost more than one computer cord due to my bunny's chewing fetish.

is it Bare or Bear Arms? what will it be next week? Wolfe Arms?

Bunny arms.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Oh nooooooooo! Please secure that poor little bunny....Corny is one crazy broad. She'll do it CL.

Nobody could hurt my bunny. He's too cute!

A dear friend of mine once had a lop eared wabbit named Farley. She'd let him out in the privacy fenced back yard. He would spend hours digging a trench next to the fence and behind her rose bushes. It was about 10' on each side of the corner. My friend would fill it in, pack it down and cover it with pine bark and he'd be right back at it the next time he was out.

Lol! I have to keep all the cords in my house hidden behind furniture. I've lost more than one computer cord due to my bunny's chewing fetish.

is it Bare or Bear Arms? what will it be next week? Wolfe Arms?

Bunny arms.

I want that bunny!!! send it to me VIA UPS !! Now !!!

 

[ChrisL]

Nobody could hurt my bunny. He's too cute!

A dear friend of mine once had a lop eared wabbit named Farley. She'd let him out in the privacy fenced back yard. He would spend hours digging a trench next to the fence and behind her rose bushes. It was about 10' on each side of the corner. My friend would fill it in, pack it down and cover it with pine bark and he'd be right back at it the next time he was out.

Lol! I have to keep all the cords in my house hidden behind furniture. I've lost more than one computer cord due to my bunny's chewing fetish.

is it Bare or Bear Arms? what will it be next week? Wolfe Arms?

Bunny arms.

I want that bunny!!! send it to me VIA UPS !! Now !!!

No way! Get your own bunny arms!

 

[Rexx Taylor]

A dear friend of mine once had a lop eared wabbit named Farley. She'd let him out in the privacy fenced back yard. He would spend hours digging a trench next to the fence and behind her rose bushes. It was about 10' on each side of the corner. My friend would fill it in, pack it down and cover it with pine bark and he'd be right back at it the next time he was out.

Lol! I have to keep all the cords in my house hidden behind furniture. I've lost more than one computer cord due to my bunny's chewing fetish.

is it Bare or Bear Arms? what will it be next week? Wolfe Arms?

Bunny arms.

I want that bunny!!! send it to me VIA UPS !! Now !!!

No way! Get your own bunny arms!

are they on sale at target?

 

[ChrisL]

Lol! I have to keep all the cords in my house hidden behind furniture. I've lost more than one computer cord due to my bunny's chewing fetish.

is it Bare or Bear Arms? what will it be next week? Wolfe Arms?

Bunny arms.

I want that bunny!!! send it to me VIA UPS !! Now !!!

No way! Get your own bunny arms!

are they on sale at target?

No bunnies at Target.

 

[Markle]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

The invisible man in the sky has nothing to do with your "rights".

"Rights" are man-made, granted by Governments.

Have you always been a few fries short of a Happy Meal or is this something recent?

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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,

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

 

[P@triot]

Thank goodness that Chicago outlawed firearms. It certainly kept this woman very safe. Thanks to the Chicago ban she did not get shot at all. Not once. She was merely stabbed to death.

Family of Murder Victim Furious After Video of Subway Stabbing Goes Viral

 

[P@triot]

Here is why we need our 2nd Amendment rights - because libtards resort to violence day in and day out whenever conservatives attempt to hold politics rallies or even speak...

10 Hospitalized in Violent Clash Between Right-Wing Protesters, Counterprotesters at California Capitol

 

[P@triot]

Half way through the year and Chicago already has 300 murders. Roughly two per day. That whole liberal gun ban thing is working out really well there...

Chicago schools to hang peace banners after city's 300th murder | National Catholic Reporter

 

[ChrisL]

Half way through the year and Chicago already has 300 murders. Roughly two per day. That whole liberal gun ban thing is working out really well there...

Chicago schools to hang peace banners after city's 300th murder | National Catholic Reporter

Yep. It has been shown that restricting our rights or banning something does NOT stop criminals from breaking the law. It's just common sense that only LAW ABIDING people are affected by such things. Murder is already against the law and is subject to the harshest punishments we can provide. If THAT doesn't deter a murderer, what in the hell is any other law going to do??? Nothing, that's what.

 

[The Professor]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
I previously posted this information on another thread but thought I should repeat it just for you. Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

 

[Camp]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
I previously posted this information on another thread but thought I should repeat it just for you. Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.

 

[ChrisL]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
I previously posted this information on another thread but thought I should repeat it just for you. Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

Well, Professor, you should know that District of Columbia vs. Heller was a game changer and controversial ruling that changed long-standing interpretations. That ruling will almost certainly be reversed when and if the SCOTUS vacancy is filled and is the main reason why a seat remains vacant at this time. If Clinton wins and the Senate goes Democrat that ruling will go by the wayside and the dissenting opinion will replace it when the subject comes before the court again.

I think it's pretty clear what the founders intended when they wrote the BOR. Lol. They can't vary from the Constitution with such blatant attempts to hurt the US citizens.