The NRA.

[HereWeGoAgain]

And why would I worry about that?

So, here's the thing. They're playing you.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

Here's what they wrote here.

"Self-defense is a fundamental right, and the right to use firearms for self-defense is recognized by the Constitution of the United States"

Yes, all true. What they didn't say was that self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

What they did say was what the Supreme Court had said in the Heller case, which they know what it says and what it doesn't say, but they won't tell you that.

The right to keep and bears arms was put into the US Constitution for a reason. Each of the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights was there to prevent the US Federal Government from doing things. These things weren't plucked out of thin air, they were there for a very real reason.

The First Amendment, or example.

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

It was there because the British Monarch was the head of the Church of England etc and this then led to repression of other people's religious persuasion.

Abridging the freedom of speech was because the British had repressed people's political thoughts in order to gain power over people.

Freedom of the press was because the British would limit freedom of the press to prevent political thought spreading.

Each of these had a reason for being there. Each reason was connected to politics.

The NRA knows this. Their legal people know this.

The Second Amendment doesn't read "People have the right to own arms and to walk around with them."

It starts with "A well regulated militia...." because this is the reason to have these protections. They're protecting the militia.

Now, before your brain starts going crazy, this argument is not the typical argument of "collective rights", it's not the argument that you need to be in the militia to have these rights.

The point is the reason why they had the right to keep arms was so the militia would have a ready supply of arms in the event of an emergency. Arms that the US Federal government could not touch.

If individuals (yes, individuals, you see I wrote individuals?) had their own weapons which the US government could not take away from them before due process, then the militia could use those weapons in the event the US Federal government went a little crazy, or bad, or mad, or whatever might pass.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.

What about the right to bear arms?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Remember?

If the Federal government couldn't take away the guns from the militia. Perhaps it could take away the personnel. How useful would a militia be if it had lots of guns but no one to use those guns? It'd be pretty fucking useless.

So, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals (see, I wrote individuals again) to be in the militia. To be able to use those arms that are protected in militia service.

So, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.

I can prove it too.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They wanted this clause in the Second Amendment. But it was voted out.

Mr Gerry said about this clause:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he said the Feds could declare people religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

Now, either this means they could prevent people from being in the militia, or it could mean they could prevent people from carry arms around.

Which is more likely to give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the constitution? The militia being ineffective or people carrying guns around?

Well, Mr Gerry said:

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Do we think Mr Gerry thought it was carry guns around? Nah, he's talking about preventing people being in the militia.

Mr Gerry also said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Right, so, Mr Gerry to "prevent them from bearing arms" and changed it to "exclude those from militia duty".

Mr Jackson said: "by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Would you demand people pay an equivalent because they refused to carry arms around with them at all times? No. There's nothing demanding people carry arms around with them at all times.

But not carrying out militia duty however, might be considered worthy of paying an equivalent.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

See here, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, you have a document, from the FOUNDING FATHERS in the HOUSE debating the future of the Second Amendment.

Not once did they talk about carrying arms. But lots of times they talked about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia".

It's about protecting the militia from the US govt. It does so by protecting the individual rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

It does NOT protect the right to self defense. Self defense is in the Constitution, just not in the Second Amendment. The same as the right to privacy is in the Constitution but not specifically stated.

This Supreme court case PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) was made long before the NRA started to play silly beggars with the Amendment.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

They stated that the Second Amendment does NOT protect the right of people to carry arms around with them.

This case also states a similar thing ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Even George Washington in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783 used language that makes it clear that "bear arms" is "Military duties"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

All in all the NRA know that the 2A does not protect a right to carry arms. This is why they don't fight the carry and conceal permits. They know they'll never win a court case that directly goes after making "carry arms" mean "bear arms".

Yet at the same time they're stringing their followers along. They're using clever language to hide the fact that they know there is no right to carry arms. But they'll tell you in a round about way that there is. Just not in terms that they think can bite them on the ass.

Dont smoke crack!!!!

That's all you've got? Someone posts FACTS and all you can do is make some snide high school type remark?

No argument in counter to this? No. Just insults.

What a fucking surprise. The same as 2Aguy.

Not my problem you hate the 2nd amendment.

Oh, now I've gone from smoking crack to hating the 2nd Amendment.

Would you care to actually debate this or just keep flinging the insults?

Who else is fighting for our 2nd amendment?

 

[2aguy]

The NRA is the biggest gun Rights group, I don't follow every policy they support because they have a mixed record. What they do is get out the vote. Insulting you is the rational thing to do since you are a left wing asshat who supports totalitarian left wing policies.

And yes... you are an idiot.

Do you really have to be so insulting? Can't you disagree without the name calling?

I opted for a membership with Gun Owners of America ("No Compromise") instead of the NRA because as an African American female I wasn't sure that the NRA fully supported my 2nd amendment rights while GOA fights legislatively and through the courts to protect our second amendment rights. Not to take anything away from the NRA because I do know that both the Second Amendment Foundation & the NRA have stepped in and sued on behalf of the rights of disenfranchised members of society such as when the New Orlean Police Department were unlawfully seizing firearms after hurricane Katrina, I was just not confident enough at the time.

I also am familiar with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committe for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, an affiliated orgnization of SAF. After learning about my history and the reasoning behind my decision to obtain my concealed carry permit one of their writers asked me if they could include an article about me in their Women & Guns magazine. I agreed to the interview but instead of just including the article, they featured me on the cover of the Fall 2003 issue.

I used to be polite all the time....then asshats like frigid, along with his buddies in the gun control movement kept acting like asshats. When a mass public shooting would happen, I would wait, not wanting to talk politics so soon after an attack.....then the gun grabber politicians would be in front of cameras calling for gun control laws that don't work, and their allies like frigid would call the NRA killers, and those who support them child killers....so yes....I will describe a totalitarian like frigid in the terms he deserves.



And your post is exactly why I do it. Why on earth would you think the NRA wouldn't support your Right as an African American Woman to own guns? It is because Frigid and the other gun grabbers have lied about the NRA at every opportunity.......... Frigid and his anti gun buddies are the ones who call the NRA racist in order to keep people like you from supporting them. They lie, they use emotion and are happy to do it because they want to ban guns, they are left wing and will do whatever they have to do to get that done.

I have been debating anti gunners for years. You will find that they lie, they will accuse you of being someone who supports the murder of children, and once they find out that you are an African AMerican woman, they will start with the race hate......

I have watched the left work their hate for years, and sitting back as they smear good people over and over again while the Conservatives and gun owners try to just present facts isn't getting the job done. They need to be called out for who and what they are.

 

[2aguy]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

And why would I worry about that?

So, here's the thing. They're playing you.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

Here's what they wrote here.

"Self-defense is a fundamental right, and the right to use firearms for self-defense is recognized by the Constitution of the United States"

Yes, all true. What they didn't say was that self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

What they did say was what the Supreme Court had said in the Heller case, which they know what it says and what it doesn't say, but they won't tell you that.

The right to keep and bears arms was put into the US Constitution for a reason. Each of the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights was there to prevent the US Federal Government from doing things. These things weren't plucked out of thin air, they were there for a very real reason.

The First Amendment, or example.

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

It was there because the British Monarch was the head of the Church of England etc and this then led to repression of other people's religious persuasion.

Abridging the freedom of speech was because the British had repressed people's political thoughts in order to gain power over people.

Freedom of the press was because the British would limit freedom of the press to prevent political thought spreading.

Each of these had a reason for being there. Each reason was connected to politics.

The NRA knows this. Their legal people know this.

The Second Amendment doesn't read "People have the right to own arms and to walk around with them."

It starts with "A well regulated militia...." because this is the reason to have these protections. They're protecting the militia.

Now, before your brain starts going crazy, this argument is not the typical argument of "collective rights", it's not the argument that you need to be in the militia to have these rights.

The point is the reason why they had the right to keep arms was so the militia would have a ready supply of arms in the event of an emergency. Arms that the US Federal government could not touch.

If individuals (yes, individuals, you see I wrote individuals?) had their own weapons which the US government could not take away from them before due process, then the militia could use those weapons in the event the US Federal government went a little crazy, or bad, or mad, or whatever might pass.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.

What about the right to bear arms?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Remember?

If the Federal government couldn't take away the guns from the militia. Perhaps it could take away the personnel. How useful would a militia be if it had lots of guns but no one to use those guns? It'd be pretty fucking useless.

So, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals (see, I wrote individuals again) to be in the militia. To be able to use those arms that are protected in militia service.

So, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.

I can prove it too.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They wanted this clause in the Second Amendment. But it was voted out.

Mr Gerry said about this clause:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he said the Feds could declare people religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

Now, either this means they could prevent people from being in the militia, or it could mean they could prevent people from carry arms around.

Which is more likely to give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the constitution? The militia being ineffective or people carrying guns around?

Well, Mr Gerry said:

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Do we think Mr Gerry thought it was carry guns around? Nah, he's talking about preventing people being in the militia.

Mr Gerry also said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Right, so, Mr Gerry to "prevent them from bearing arms" and changed it to "exclude those from militia duty".

Mr Jackson said: "by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Would you demand people pay an equivalent because they refused to carry arms around with them at all times? No. There's nothing demanding people carry arms around with them at all times.

But not carrying out militia duty however, might be considered worthy of paying an equivalent.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

See here, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, you have a document, from the FOUNDING FATHERS in the HOUSE debating the future of the Second Amendment.

Not once did they talk about carrying arms. But lots of times they talked about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia".

It's about protecting the militia from the US govt. It does so by protecting the individual rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

It does NOT protect the right to self defense. Self defense is in the Constitution, just not in the Second Amendment. The same as the right to privacy is in the Constitution but not specifically stated.

This Supreme court case PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) was made long before the NRA started to play silly beggars with the Amendment.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

They stated that the Second Amendment does NOT protect the right of people to carry arms around with them.

This case also states a similar thing ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Even George Washington in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783 used language that makes it clear that "bear arms" is "Military duties"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

All in all the NRA know that the 2A does not protect a right to carry arms. This is why they don't fight the carry and conceal permits. They know they'll never win a court case that directly goes after making "carry arms" mean "bear arms".

Yet at the same time they're stringing their followers along. They're using clever language to hide the fact that they know there is no right to carry arms. But they'll tell you in a round about way that there is. Just not in terms that they think can bite them on the ass.

The 2nd Amendment, it's history and how the laws surrounding it was completely explained in Heller... you know this, and you need to lie about it......the truth is like a cross to a vampire for you.

 

[2aguy]

Does the NRA support carry and conceal permits? Yes or no?

Yes.

Can the US govt or state governments have permits on rights? Yes or no?

Feds? No . . . States? We are in flux right now. The 2nd Amendment did not impact state or local laws until 2010 but states have ALWAYS possessed the power to dictate as to manner of carry.

We see as cases have come up through the Circuits law being developed that a private citizen does possess a right -- secured by the 2nd Amendment--to carry a gun for self defense in public.

Discretionary state laws that condition the issuance of permits to essentially barring concealed carry are permissible only if people are allowed to carry open (see the 9th's decision in Young last month).

Is a person considered crazy for posting facts? Yes or no?

No, unless those "facts" are filtered through a mesh of BS. Even then, probably not crazy, just disingenuous . . .

And the prohibitions on concealed carry in our history were a matter of beliefs that do not match today..... they believed back then, when the pistol was the size of a truck, that the only people who would carry a hidden pistol were criminals. That is not true today as normal, law abiding people carry concealed weapons so that bad guys, who carry pistols hidden for crime, can't target them and disarm them. The prohibitions on concealed carry need to be removed from our tradition.....

Any law abiding American should be able to carry a pistol open or concealed without a permit or license....as the 2nd Amendment protects the Right to "Bear Arms" it does not prohibit carrying a weapon concealed.......and the choice between open and concealed carry is not something the government has the Right to control.

Also, the Supreme Court ruled in Murdock v Pennsylvania that the government cannot charge a fee or tax on the exercise of a Right.

 

[2aguy]

Does the NRA support carry and conceal permits? Yes or no?

Yes.

Can the US govt or state governments have permits on rights? Yes or no?

Feds? No . . . States? We are in flux right now. The 2nd Amendment did not impact state or local laws until 2010 but states have ALWAYS possessed the power to dictate as to manner of carry.

We see as cases have come up through the Circuits law being developed that a private citizen does possess a right -- secured by the 2nd Amendment--to carry a gun for self defense in public.

Discretionary state laws that condition the issuance of permits to essentially barring concealed carry are permissible only if people are allowed to carry open (see the 9th's decision in Young last month).

Is a person considered crazy for posting facts? Yes or no?

No, unless those "facts" are filtered through a mesh of BS. Even then, probably not crazy, just disingenuous . . .

The point being that the state governments don't have permits on a right at all. Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

Hence why state governments get away with it EVEN THOUGH the NRA is there. And the NRA does nothing about it. Why?

Some states might say that carrying openly is protected. They're allowed to do that. They're allowed to make up rights and stick them in their constitution.

But under Federal law, ie, the Second Amendment, there is no right to carry arms.


Well, lucky for me that none of my facts are "filtered through a mess of BS" then, isn't it?

And you know how I know this is the case? Because half the people will simply insult me, rather than bother to even debate this, the other half will, at some point, just tell me they "believe" things to be the case.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

You don't know what you are talking about and/or you are lying about knowing what the 2nd Amendment states.......

You have been shown over and over what the history of the 2nd Amendment is, and then you go on to lie about it....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
=======

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”

-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment:

Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”

----

B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the


---------

1. Post-ratification Commentary Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 33 Opinion of the Court the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

 

[2aguy]

Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

Yes and no.

The problem is that the Supreme Court was very mischievous.

Mostly what they did is say "here are the two arguments, as the DC side didn't say this, we're going to ignore it."

Basically Heller is open to another case coming along that changes things.

Try this.

"(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."

So, the Supreme Court say "right to keep and carry any weapon" as if "bear arms" means "carry any weapon", but they put it in a sentence that's a negative.

They're literally saying here there isn't a right to carry arms, because in the past they've upheld concealed weapons prohibitions, but they got in "right to... carry any weapons".

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They've upheld court cases that say "there isn't a right to carry arms", but at the same time they've done it by saying only that it doesn't refute the "individual-rights interpretation".

"(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."

They also said this. The right protects the right to possess a firearm (that's the right to keep arms), but also the right to use that arm for "traditional lawful purposes".

Wait, what? How can you have a right to do something that is allowed by law? It's saying if it isn't allowed by the law any more, it's not protected.

Essentially what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller is that there is an individual right to keep arms and an individual right to bear arms.

That was the scope of the case.

What they then tried to do was to aim the "bear arms" towards being "carry arms", but they also said that this wasn't so while saying it was.

A master piece of disinformation about trying to get something in place which doesn't actually exist and they damn well know it doesn't exist either.

As for your examples, you need to state which cases they're from.

The question here is, in your first example, did they say you could use a weapon for self defense, or did they say you could use one for self defense as protected by the Second Amendment?

These are two very different things.

The Heller Court could address only the issue before it.

Consequently, the Constitutionality of the following issues, regulations, and restrictions remains unresolved:

AWBs

Waiting periods

Universal background checks

Magazine capacity restrictions

‘May issue’ concealed carry licensing

Waiting periods

Licensing/permit requirements and fees

Training requirements

And the level of appropriate judicial review when examining a firearm regulatory measure.

The lower courts have addressed the above regulations and restrictions and have consistently upheld them to be Constitutional – the Supreme Court has yet to review these issues.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, only prohibits the banning of handguns because Americans have overwhelmingly determined them to be the most popular means of self-defense, regardless the level of judicial review.

As long as a given jurisdiction affords its residents adequate access to firearms – handguns in particular – prohibiting the possession of specific types of firearms is Constitutionally permitted.

Wrong, the lower courts have intentionally ignored the rulings in Heller.......they ignored Caetano v Massachusettes and Scalia's specific protection of AR-15 Rifles in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park, clarifying the types of weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment......

The left wing judges on the lower courts were hoping that hilary would appoint a left wing justice to the court and allow their flagrant disregard for Heller to stand...sorry, that didn't happen and they are breaking the law....

 

[2aguy]

Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

Yes and no.

The problem is that the Supreme Court was very mischievous.

Mostly what they did is say "here are the two arguments, as the DC side didn't say this, we're going to ignore it."

Basically Heller is open to another case coming along that changes things.

Try this.

"(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."

So, the Supreme Court say "right to keep and carry any weapon" as if "bear arms" means "carry any weapon", but they put it in a sentence that's a negative.

They're literally saying here there isn't a right to carry arms, because in the past they've upheld concealed weapons prohibitions, but they got in "right to... carry any weapons".

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They've upheld court cases that say "there isn't a right to carry arms", but at the same time they've done it by saying only that it doesn't refute the "individual-rights interpretation".

"(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."

They also said this. The right protects the right to possess a firearm (that's the right to keep arms), but also the right to use that arm for "traditional lawful purposes".

Wait, what? How can you have a right to do something that is allowed by law? It's saying if it isn't allowed by the law any more, it's not protected.

Essentially what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller is that there is an individual right to keep arms and an individual right to bear arms.

That was the scope of the case.

What they then tried to do was to aim the "bear arms" towards being "carry arms", but they also said that this wasn't so while saying it was.

A master piece of disinformation about trying to get something in place which doesn't actually exist and they damn well know it doesn't exist either.

As for your examples, you need to state which cases they're from.

The question here is, in your first example, did they say you could use a weapon for self defense, or did they say you could use one for self defense as protected by the Second Amendment?

These are two very different things.

The Heller Court could address only the issue before it.

Consequently, the Constitutionality of the following issues, regulations, and restrictions remains unresolved:

AWBs

Waiting periods

Universal background checks

Magazine capacity restrictions

‘May issue’ concealed carry licensing

Waiting periods

Licensing/permit requirements and fees

Training requirements

And the level of appropriate judicial review when examining a firearm regulatory measure.

The lower courts have addressed the above regulations and restrictions and have consistently upheld them to be Constitutional – the Supreme Court has yet to review these issues.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, only prohibits the banning of handguns because Americans have overwhelmingly determined them to be the most popular means of self-defense, regardless the level of judicial review.

As long as a given jurisdiction affords its residents adequate access to firearms – handguns in particular – prohibiting the possession of specific types of firearms is Constitutionally permitted.

Of course it could only address the case before it. But it tried to do more than this. That's part of the problem.

The fact that it didn't bother to correct anyone on the meaning of "bear arms" is telling.

It was addressed in Heller, citing no less than ruth bader ginsburg...but thanks for lying about it...

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”

Also...

Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”

------

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

----

-----

These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia

------

Page 16...

Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11
------

Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
---------

 

[Redfish]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and not to vote? In many states I need an license to carry, but don't have to show an ID (prove who I am) in order to vote. Can you explain that? Can you be honest and admit that voter ID would hurt the dems by eliminating most fraudulent voting?

 

[Redfish]

the NRA has never killed anyone, Planned parenthood has killed millions (mostly minorities). So who is actually responsible for the majority of minority deaths?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, here's the thing. They're playing you.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

Here's what they wrote here.

"Self-defense is a fundamental right, and the right to use firearms for self-defense is recognized by the Constitution of the United States"

Yes, all true. What they didn't say was that self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

What they did say was what the Supreme Court had said in the Heller case, which they know what it says and what it doesn't say, but they won't tell you that.

The right to keep and bears arms was put into the US Constitution for a reason. Each of the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights was there to prevent the US Federal Government from doing things. These things weren't plucked out of thin air, they were there for a very real reason.

The First Amendment, or example.

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

It was there because the British Monarch was the head of the Church of England etc and this then led to repression of other people's religious persuasion.

Abridging the freedom of speech was because the British had repressed people's political thoughts in order to gain power over people.

Freedom of the press was because the British would limit freedom of the press to prevent political thought spreading.

Each of these had a reason for being there. Each reason was connected to politics.

The NRA knows this. Their legal people know this.

The Second Amendment doesn't read "People have the right to own arms and to walk around with them."

It starts with "A well regulated militia...." because this is the reason to have these protections. They're protecting the militia.

Now, before your brain starts going crazy, this argument is not the typical argument of "collective rights", it's not the argument that you need to be in the militia to have these rights.

The point is the reason why they had the right to keep arms was so the militia would have a ready supply of arms in the event of an emergency. Arms that the US Federal government could not touch.

If individuals (yes, individuals, you see I wrote individuals?) had their own weapons which the US government could not take away from them before due process, then the militia could use those weapons in the event the US Federal government went a little crazy, or bad, or mad, or whatever might pass.

So, the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.

What about the right to bear arms?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Remember?

If the Federal government couldn't take away the guns from the militia. Perhaps it could take away the personnel. How useful would a militia be if it had lots of guns but no one to use those guns? It'd be pretty fucking useless.

So, the right to bear arms is the right of individuals (see, I wrote individuals again) to be in the militia. To be able to use those arms that are protected in militia service.

So, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.

I can prove it too.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They wanted this clause in the Second Amendment. But it was voted out.

Mr Gerry said about this clause:

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, he said the Feds could declare people religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

Now, either this means they could prevent people from being in the militia, or it could mean they could prevent people from carry arms around.

Which is more likely to give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the constitution? The militia being ineffective or people carrying guns around?

Well, Mr Gerry said:

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Do we think Mr Gerry thought it was carry guns around? Nah, he's talking about preventing people being in the militia.

Mr Gerry also said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Right, so, Mr Gerry to "prevent them from bearing arms" and changed it to "exclude those from militia duty".

Mr Jackson said: "by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Would you demand people pay an equivalent because they refused to carry arms around with them at all times? No. There's nothing demanding people carry arms around with them at all times.

But not carrying out militia duty however, might be considered worthy of paying an equivalent.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

See here, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".

So, you have a document, from the FOUNDING FATHERS in the HOUSE debating the future of the Second Amendment.

Not once did they talk about carrying arms. But lots of times they talked about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

The Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia".

It's about protecting the militia from the US govt. It does so by protecting the individual rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

It does NOT protect the right to self defense. Self defense is in the Constitution, just not in the Second Amendment. The same as the right to privacy is in the Constitution but not specifically stated.

This Supreme court case PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) was made long before the NRA started to play silly beggars with the Amendment.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

They stated that the Second Amendment does NOT protect the right of people to carry arms around with them.

This case also states a similar thing ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Even George Washington in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783 used language that makes it clear that "bear arms" is "Military duties"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

All in all the NRA know that the 2A does not protect a right to carry arms. This is why they don't fight the carry and conceal permits. They know they'll never win a court case that directly goes after making "carry arms" mean "bear arms".

Yet at the same time they're stringing their followers along. They're using clever language to hide the fact that they know there is no right to carry arms. But they'll tell you in a round about way that there is. Just not in terms that they think can bite them on the ass.

Dont smoke crack!!!!

That's all you've got? Someone posts FACTS and all you can do is make some snide high school type remark?

No argument in counter to this? No. Just insults.

What a fucking surprise. The same as 2Aguy.

Not my problem you hate the 2nd amendment.

Oh, now I've gone from smoking crack to hating the 2nd Amendment.

Would you care to actually debate this or just keep flinging the insults?

Who else is fighting for our 2nd amendment?

You're not fighting for anything, by the looks of things, just writing random crap on a forum that has nothing to do with what's been said.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The NRA is the biggest gun Rights group, I don't follow every policy they support because they have a mixed record. What they do is get out the vote. Insulting you is the rational thing to do since you are a left wing asshat who supports totalitarian left wing policies.

And yes... you are an idiot.

Do you really have to be so insulting? Can't you disagree without the name calling?

I opted for a membership with Gun Owners of America ("No Compromise") instead of the NRA because as an African American female I wasn't sure that the NRA fully supported my 2nd amendment rights while GOA fights legislatively and through the courts to protect our second amendment rights. Not to take anything away from the NRA because I do know that both the Second Amendment Foundation & the NRA have stepped in and sued on behalf of the rights of disenfranchised members of society such as when the New Orlean Police Department were unlawfully seizing firearms after hurricane Katrina, I was just not confident enough at the time.

I also am familiar with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committe for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, an affiliated orgnization of SAF. After learning about my history and the reasoning behind my decision to obtain my concealed carry permit one of their writers asked me if they could include an article about me in their Women & Guns magazine. I agreed to the interview but instead of just including the article, they featured me on the cover of the Fall 2003 issue.

I used to be polite all the time....then asshats like frigid, along with his buddies in the gun control movement kept acting like asshats. When a mass public shooting would happen, I would wait, not wanting to talk politics so soon after an attack.....then the gun grabber politicians would be in front of cameras calling for gun control laws that don't work, and their allies like frigid would call the NRA killers, and those who support them child killers....so yes....I will describe a totalitarian like frigid in the terms he deserves.



And your post is exactly why I do it. Why on earth would you think the NRA wouldn't support your Right as an African American Woman to own guns? It is because Frigid and the other gun grabbers have lied about the NRA at every opportunity.......... Frigid and his anti gun buddies are the ones who call the NRA racist in order to keep people like you from supporting them. They lie, they use emotion and are happy to do it because they want to ban guns, they are left wing and will do whatever they have to do to get that done.

I have been debating anti gunners for years. You will find that they lie, they will accuse you of being someone who supports the murder of children, and once they find out that you are an African AMerican woman, they will start with the race hate......

I have watched the left work their hate for years, and sitting back as they smear good people over and over again while the Conservatives and gun owners try to just present facts isn't getting the job done. They need to be called out for who and what they are.

Yes, "assholes" like me.

What did I do to be called an "asshole" exactly?

I had an argument that he doesn't agree with.

That's how much it takes to be insulted. No one buys any of his crap. They know what he is. An insulter without an argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and not to vote? In many states I need an license to carry, but don't have to show an ID (prove who I am) in order to vote. Can you explain that? Can you be honest and admit that voter ID would hurt the dems by eliminating most fraudulent voting?

You don't need a permit for you 2nd Amendment rights. You need a permit for something you wrongly claim is your 2nd Amendment right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Simply said carrying a gun is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

SCOTUS recognized the right to be armed in public for self defense as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in a state in which the state militia had been disbanded by Congress -- of course being Black, these two citizens were barred from enrolling and serving an any militia.

SCOTUS characterized their right to arms, that of "bearing arms for lawful purpose", (quoting the indictment of the KKK members charged with disarming, kidnapping and lynching them), as not being granted by the 2nd Amendment thus not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. See US v Cruikshank*

SCOTUS revisited this principle just 10 years later, quoting the case above but substituting the familiar "right to keep and bear arms" for the case specific language. See Presser v Illinois

SCOTUS irrefutably equates the right of citizens --even two former slaves in 1873 Louisiana -- to be armed in public for self defense, with the pre-existing right secured in the 2nd Amendment.

I've not had one person who's been able to get anywhere close to my argument.

Well, we'll see how that goes.


* In Cruikshank since there was no militia, no state actors could be held responsible under the 14th Amendment. IOW, since the people who did the rights violation were private citizens, the Court held that there was no federal interest . . .

Yes and no.

The problem is that the Supreme Court was very mischievous.

Mostly what they did is say "here are the two arguments, as the DC side didn't say this, we're going to ignore it."

Basically Heller is open to another case coming along that changes things.

Try this.

"(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."

So, the Supreme Court say "right to keep and carry any weapon" as if "bear arms" means "carry any weapon", but they put it in a sentence that's a negative.

They're literally saying here there isn't a right to carry arms, because in the past they've upheld concealed weapons prohibitions, but they got in "right to... carry any weapons".

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They've upheld court cases that say "there isn't a right to carry arms", but at the same time they've done it by saying only that it doesn't refute the "individual-rights interpretation".

"(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."

They also said this. The right protects the right to possess a firearm (that's the right to keep arms), but also the right to use that arm for "traditional lawful purposes".

Wait, what? How can you have a right to do something that is allowed by law? It's saying if it isn't allowed by the law any more, it's not protected.

Essentially what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller is that there is an individual right to keep arms and an individual right to bear arms.

That was the scope of the case.

What they then tried to do was to aim the "bear arms" towards being "carry arms", but they also said that this wasn't so while saying it was.

A master piece of disinformation about trying to get something in place which doesn't actually exist and they damn well know it doesn't exist either.

As for your examples, you need to state which cases they're from.

The question here is, in your first example, did they say you could use a weapon for self defense, or did they say you could use one for self defense as protected by the Second Amendment?

These are two very different things.

The Heller Court could address only the issue before it.

Consequently, the Constitutionality of the following issues, regulations, and restrictions remains unresolved:

AWBs

Waiting periods

Universal background checks

Magazine capacity restrictions

‘May issue’ concealed carry licensing

Waiting periods

Licensing/permit requirements and fees

Training requirements

And the level of appropriate judicial review when examining a firearm regulatory measure.

The lower courts have addressed the above regulations and restrictions and have consistently upheld them to be Constitutional – the Supreme Court has yet to review these issues.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, only prohibits the banning of handguns because Americans have overwhelmingly determined them to be the most popular means of self-defense, regardless the level of judicial review.

As long as a given jurisdiction affords its residents adequate access to firearms – handguns in particular – prohibiting the possession of specific types of firearms is Constitutionally permitted.

Of course it could only address the case before it. But it tried to do more than this. That's part of the problem.

The fact that it didn't bother to correct anyone on the meaning of "bear arms" is telling.

It was addressed in Heller, citing no less than ruth bader ginsburg...but thanks for lying about it...

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”

Also...

Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”

------

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

----

-----

These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia

------

Page 16...

Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11
------

Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
---------

Wow, did you just get through a post without insulting someone.

Conflagugrations.

 

[Redfish]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and not to vote? In many states I need an license to carry, but don't have to show an ID (prove who I am) in order to vote. Can you explain that? Can you be honest and admit that voter ID would hurt the dems by eliminating most fraudulent voting?

You don't need a permit for you 2nd Amendment rights. You need a permit for something you wrongly claim is your 2nd Amendment right.

the right to bear arms. what exactly does "bear arms" mean to you? hint: it doesn't mean wear short sleeves.

 

[Redfish]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and not to vote? In many states I need an license to carry, but don't have to show an ID (prove who I am) in order to vote. Can you explain that? Can you be honest and admit that voter ID would hurt the dems by eliminating most fraudulent voting?

You don't need a permit for you 2nd Amendment rights. You need a permit for something you wrongly claim is your 2nd Amendment right.

then you should support voter ID, proving who you are before voting. you need an ID to collect welfare, food stamps, cash a check, collect social security, board a plane, buy booze, why not to cast a vote? who in the USA today does not have some form of ID?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Dont smoke crack!!!!

That's all you've got? Someone posts FACTS and all you can do is make some snide high school type remark?

No argument in counter to this? No. Just insults.

What a fucking surprise. The same as 2Aguy.

Not my problem you hate the 2nd amendment.

Oh, now I've gone from smoking crack to hating the 2nd Amendment.

Would you care to actually debate this or just keep flinging the insults?

Who else is fighting for our 2nd amendment?

You're not fighting for anything, by the looks of things, just writing random crap on a forum that has nothing to do with what's been said.

We get it,you hate the NRA.

 

[2aguy]

The NRA is the biggest gun Rights group, I don't follow every policy they support because they have a mixed record. What they do is get out the vote. Insulting you is the rational thing to do since you are a left wing asshat who supports totalitarian left wing policies.

And yes... you are an idiot.

Do you really have to be so insulting? Can't you disagree without the name calling?

I opted for a membership with Gun Owners of America ("No Compromise") instead of the NRA because as an African American female I wasn't sure that the NRA fully supported my 2nd amendment rights while GOA fights legislatively and through the courts to protect our second amendment rights. Not to take anything away from the NRA because I do know that both the Second Amendment Foundation & the NRA have stepped in and sued on behalf of the rights of disenfranchised members of society such as when the New Orlean Police Department were unlawfully seizing firearms after hurricane Katrina, I was just not confident enough at the time.

I also am familiar with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committe for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, an affiliated orgnization of SAF. After learning about my history and the reasoning behind my decision to obtain my concealed carry permit one of their writers asked me if they could include an article about me in their Women & Guns magazine. I agreed to the interview but instead of just including the article, they featured me on the cover of the Fall 2003 issue.

I used to be polite all the time....then asshats like frigid, along with his buddies in the gun control movement kept acting like asshats. When a mass public shooting would happen, I would wait, not wanting to talk politics so soon after an attack.....then the gun grabber politicians would be in front of cameras calling for gun control laws that don't work, and their allies like frigid would call the NRA killers, and those who support them child killers....so yes....I will describe a totalitarian like frigid in the terms he deserves.



And your post is exactly why I do it. Why on earth would you think the NRA wouldn't support your Right as an African American Woman to own guns? It is because Frigid and the other gun grabbers have lied about the NRA at every opportunity.......... Frigid and his anti gun buddies are the ones who call the NRA racist in order to keep people like you from supporting them. They lie, they use emotion and are happy to do it because they want to ban guns, they are left wing and will do whatever they have to do to get that done.

I have been debating anti gunners for years. You will find that they lie, they will accuse you of being someone who supports the murder of children, and once they find out that you are an African AMerican woman, they will start with the race hate......

I have watched the left work their hate for years, and sitting back as they smear good people over and over again while the Conservatives and gun owners try to just present facts isn't getting the job done. They need to be called out for who and what they are.

Yes, "assholes" like me.

What did I do to be called an "asshole" exactly?

I had an argument that he doesn't agree with.

That's how much it takes to be insulted. No one buys any of his crap. They know what he is. An insulter without an argument.

Don't judge frigid by one post.... watch what he does over time, then you will see why I call him the names I call him...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just upgraded to a Lifetime Membership ......and it's worth every penny!!

You do know that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, right?

They know if you have a permit, it's because you don't have the right.

Which means they know that there isn't a right to carry arms.

NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and not to vote? In many states I need an license to carry, but don't have to show an ID (prove who I am) in order to vote. Can you explain that? Can you be honest and admit that voter ID would hurt the dems by eliminating most fraudulent voting?

You don't need a permit for you 2nd Amendment rights. You need a permit for something you wrongly claim is your 2nd Amendment right.

the right to bear arms. what exactly does "bear arms" mean to you? hint: it doesn't mean wear short sleeves.

If you could go read post 24, you'll see my argument for what "bear arms" clearly means.

The only arguments for it meaning "carry arms" are things like "well, bear can mean carry, so it must".

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's all you've got? Someone posts FACTS and all you can do is make some snide high school type remark?

No argument in counter to this? No. Just insults.

What a fucking surprise. The same as 2Aguy.

Not my problem you hate the 2nd amendment.

Oh, now I've gone from smoking crack to hating the 2nd Amendment.

Would you care to actually debate this or just keep flinging the insults?

Who else is fighting for our 2nd amendment?

You're not fighting for anything, by the looks of things, just writing random crap on a forum that has nothing to do with what's been said.

We get it,you hate the NRA.

I get it, you don't have an argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The NRA is the biggest gun Rights group, I don't follow every policy they support because they have a mixed record. What they do is get out the vote. Insulting you is the rational thing to do since you are a left wing asshat who supports totalitarian left wing policies.

And yes... you are an idiot.

Do you really have to be so insulting? Can't you disagree without the name calling?

I opted for a membership with Gun Owners of America ("No Compromise") instead of the NRA because as an African American female I wasn't sure that the NRA fully supported my 2nd amendment rights while GOA fights legislatively and through the courts to protect our second amendment rights. Not to take anything away from the NRA because I do know that both the Second Amendment Foundation & the NRA have stepped in and sued on behalf of the rights of disenfranchised members of society such as when the New Orlean Police Department were unlawfully seizing firearms after hurricane Katrina, I was just not confident enough at the time.

I also am familiar with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committe for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, an affiliated orgnization of SAF. After learning about my history and the reasoning behind my decision to obtain my concealed carry permit one of their writers asked me if they could include an article about me in their Women & Guns magazine. I agreed to the interview but instead of just including the article, they featured me on the cover of the Fall 2003 issue.

I used to be polite all the time....then asshats like frigid, along with his buddies in the gun control movement kept acting like asshats. When a mass public shooting would happen, I would wait, not wanting to talk politics so soon after an attack.....then the gun grabber politicians would be in front of cameras calling for gun control laws that don't work, and their allies like frigid would call the NRA killers, and those who support them child killers....so yes....I will describe a totalitarian like frigid in the terms he deserves.



And your post is exactly why I do it. Why on earth would you think the NRA wouldn't support your Right as an African American Woman to own guns? It is because Frigid and the other gun grabbers have lied about the NRA at every opportunity.......... Frigid and his anti gun buddies are the ones who call the NRA racist in order to keep people like you from supporting them. They lie, they use emotion and are happy to do it because they want to ban guns, they are left wing and will do whatever they have to do to get that done.

I have been debating anti gunners for years. You will find that they lie, they will accuse you of being someone who supports the murder of children, and once they find out that you are an African AMerican woman, they will start with the race hate......

I have watched the left work their hate for years, and sitting back as they smear good people over and over again while the Conservatives and gun owners try to just present facts isn't getting the job done. They need to be called out for who and what they are.

Yes, "assholes" like me.

What did I do to be called an "asshole" exactly?

I had an argument that he doesn't agree with.

That's how much it takes to be insulted. No one buys any of his crap. They know what he is. An insulter without an argument.

Don't judge frigid by one post.... watch what he does over time, then you will see why I call him the names I call him...

Yeah, I consistently come on here with an argument, I make my case, back it up with facts and logic.

Such an "asshole" I am.

I also tell 2Aguy when he insults me.