The Right To Bear Arms

[ChrisL]

Well, the military (as far as I know) pledges to defend the constitution of the United States and the citizens of the US...

... and follow the orders of their Commander-in-Chief.

Not if he goes against the constitution. Our country is set up so as to avoid the occurrence of tyranny. THAT is why the military takes an oath to protect AMERICA and not any politicians or their offices.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Not if he goes against the constitution. Our country is set up so as to avoid the occurrence of tyranny. THAT is why the military takes an oath to protect AMERICA and not any politicians or their offices.

TESTIFY!

 

[Afterword]

Not if he goes against the constitution.

At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.

 

[turtledude]

Hillary won't take our guns.

of course not, she will need men with guns to do that. Bannerrhoids are invariably cowards and want others to do the dirty work

 

[ChrisL]

Not if he goes against the constitution.

At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.

Well then you need to read the federalist papers and familiarize yourself with exactly what it is they meant. I have.

 

[Afterword]

Not if he goes against the constitution.

At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.

Well then you need to read the federalist papers and familiarize yourself with exactly what it is they meant. I have.

I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.

 

[ChrisL]

Not if he goes against the constitution.

At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.

Well then you need to read the federalist papers and familiarize yourself with exactly what it is they meant. I have.

I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.

Oh really? Well, why don't you quote some of the federalist papers relating to the 2A then. If you've read them, then you would know that they in fact DO explain why.

 

[ChrisL]

Not if he goes against the constitution.

At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.

Well then you need to read the federalist papers and familiarize yourself with exactly what it is they meant. I have.

I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."

MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION

(December 12, 1787)





That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.

DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION

(February 6, 1788)

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(June 21, 1788)

Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

VIRGINIA CONVENTION

(June 27, 1788)

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

NEW YORK CONVENTION

(July 7,1788)

That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.





NEW YORK CONVENTION

(July 26,1788)

That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(May 29, 1790)

XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

 

[Afterword]

As it applied then is all that you have demonstrated. It is like asking Madison how he would fix the carburetor in your '66 Camaro.

Besides, I see no credible threat to my possession of firearms, and if there were a serious threat nothing in the Federalist Papers or the Constitution or The Bill of Rights would stop them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As it applied then is all that you have demonstrated. It is like asking Madison how he would fix the carburetor in your '66 Camaro.

1966 Camaro?
Can I get a pic?

 

[P@triot]

I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.

By that logic - you should be banned from posting your oppressive, anti-constitutional rants on the internet. You should also be banned from owning a cell phone, a computer, and internet access. After all, the founders granted us 1st Amendment rights but they lived in a world without technology allowing misinformation and disinformation to spread across the world in seconds. They could not have foreseen how dangerous the 1st Amendment would become in the hands of liberals with this kind of development in technology. They intended the first amendment to be just between neighbors speaking and newspapers. They didn't even have telephones back then.

Idiot.

 

[P@triot]

The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.

And your point would be??? Liberty does not apply only to certain era's. It transcends all time and space. And if for some reason the modern era requires the end of liberty - the founders allowed the people to make that choice but only through the proper amendment process.

So if you feel that firearms no longer have a place in American society, convince the American people of that and amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that. Good luck.

 

[P@triot]

Proof that the entire liberal narrative about their concern for those in poverty is false. They had the perfect opportunity here for complete bipartisan support to lift fees, taxes, and various other costly regulations on those below the poverty line to ensure that they were compliant with important gun laws. And what did the Dumbocrats do? In one case, unanimously voted it down and in another case, blocked the legislation from even being voted upon.

They are exponentially more interested in disarming the American people than they are in helping those in poverty. There is no denying it. The audio is damning.

Gun Expert Blows Away Stats Used by Democrats

 

[Afterword]

Y

I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.

By that logic - you should be banned from posting your oppressive, anti-constitutional rants on the internet. You should also be banned from owning a cell phone, a computer, and internet access. After all, the founders granted us 1st Amendment rights but they lived in a world without technology allowing misinformation and disinformation to spread across the world in seconds. They could not have foreseen how dangerous the 1st Amendment would become in the hands of liberals with this kind of development in technology. They intended the first amendment to be just between neighbors speaking and newspapers. They didn't even have telephones back then.

Idiot.

You are right, they were out of touch with today's reality.

 

[P@triot]

Y

I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.

By that logic - you should be banned from posting your oppressive, anti-constitutional rants on the internet. You should also be banned from owning a cell phone, a computer, and internet access. After all, the founders granted us 1st Amendment rights but they lived in a world without technology allowing misinformation and disinformation to spread across the world in seconds. They could not have foreseen how dangerous the 1st Amendment would become in the hands of liberals with this kind of development in technology. They intended the first amendment to be just between neighbors speaking and newspapers. They didn't even have telephones back then.

Idiot.

You are right, they were out of touch with today's reality.

So stop posting. Throw away your computer and unplug your internet. Lead. Lead by example. Don't sit there boring everyone to death with your nonsense. Stand up and show the world how it is done.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The Right to Bear Arms saved this man's life.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.

Who are you tell somebody how they can effectively defend their home?

I have over two dozen ARs. It is not my weapon of choice for home defense but I may change my mind depending upon the threat.

When it comes to home invasions, a good ole .45 will probably work best.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty

So, just to be clear...
GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
Right?

Of course, they are. Unfortunately, the Hague is not big enough for the two of them.

*Shootout at the OK Corral*

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL

You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.

Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.

Listen to you whining about other people whining

Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your right to bear arms by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.

Still whining about other people I see

I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The right to bear arms and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.

OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.

Good luck because i have never said that.

So now go suck your thumb in the corner

Fighting the military with the millions of guns we have will be the best game ever invented.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You believe in those filthy ass government background checks for firearms.

If you are so upset, just pitch a tent at a gun show. Good luck!