The Right To Bear Arms

[Harry Dresden]

Protected by 2nd Amendment.

Yes the military and county sheriff also had those type of firearms.
DO YOU HAVE A POINT?

his point is.....ALL guns should be banned......

 

[hazlnut]

The cartoons above demonstrate the paranoia in some nutter circles.

Pathetic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

Love this claim. We're supposed to believe that the Bill of Rights, which limits the power of government over the people, includes an amendment that limits the power of the people, to keep and bear Arms.

It's a ridiculous claim.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete. We're the United Freakin States. We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French. And no one wants that.

Lookie here someone who supports what the KKK pushed for.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Protected by 2nd Amendment.

Yes the military and county sheriff also had those type of firearms.
DO YOU HAVE A POINT?

his point is.....ALL guns should be banned......

That's fine with me as long as the government isn't allowed to keep it's guns.

 

[LibertyLemming]

What is interesting is around the time of the 2nd amendment the entire world was more or less on an equal playing field in terms of weaponry. Citizens and anyone really could buy and access the same weapons around the globe. This is a time of massive populous lead revolutions that lead to repulics and democratic societies (not that I like democracy).

Now we are oppressed and have a huge portion of our earnings taken by us via force. We can't even take the medicine we want without approval fromna government agency. Not drive, marry, fuck, eat, etc. A reason is the playing field is uneven. If Obama and his Republican counterparts can protect themselves with weapons A, B, and C, then I too should the allowed the same. After all it is "We the people" no? We are all equal in that sense.

 

[SniperFire]

'Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.'

The right to bear arms is ancient, and goes back to when man first chucked a rock to make a point.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the inalienable right to bear arms. Our inalienable right exists a priori and independent of it.

Read it.

The Amendment tells why nobody should think about INFRINGING on the right to bear arms. It does not establish the right to bear arms. That right exists a priori.

Get it? Good. Then change your sig line, you stupid fuck.

 

[LibertyLemming]

LoL I bet you have no problem with taxing people and taking their property by threat of locking them in a cage do you? We have a right to rocks and guns but not our property and earnings.

 

[HUGGY]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

If our government gets out of hand and turns into something like the NAZIs of Germany or Mussolini's Italy the second ammentment is a redress of last resort. Would you throw the life preservers and the life boats off of ships? We have the right and the duty to protect our constitution when our elected representatives choose to oaths and actions that lead to tyranny and treason.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.

 

[bayoubill]

Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.

if the ragheads in bumbfuckistan can do it, so can we...

 

[HUGGY]

Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.

The Afghans seem to manage.

 

[Zoom]

Bet? Lost? Still here?

 

[Zoom]

Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.

if the ragheads in bumbfuckistan can do it, so can we...

Yeah but got cleetus and his cousin wife . You see we have idiots here...cowardly idiots. Are you telling me an armed citizen is a threat to the marines or the air force? Go with that. Merican.

 

[tjvh]

Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.

What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?

 

[Lakhota]

Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.

What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?

What makes you think they will?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

Unless it's updated to reflect the times in a negative manner for you and your leftist chums.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Awww...how quaint...a leftturd cheering Murdoch. LOL!

 

[squeeze berry]

Protected by 2nd Amendment.

I'm one person who would have no problem with a ban on any gun other than a flintlock.

Just as long as everyone else in the world plays by the same rules.

 

[Lakhota]

And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia