Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
FUCK YOU LEFTIST. YOU won't get my guns, assholes!
We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government. We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.
Madison said:
We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen."[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."
All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it. Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance. You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.
You don't need convinced that we should own as many guns as we want to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Because, that's just the way it is. Why would anyone need to convince you when those are the facts of the matter? If you need convincing, then you must live in some fantasy land somewhere and you're completely oblivious to the United States Constitution and what it contains. But, since most people aren't as clueless as you? Convincing you really doesn't matter.
America was founded on murder and theft.
The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.
First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia
Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.
So, what was that about the Second being clear?
The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.
The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.
Having just read the entirety of your link I find no instance of anyone disputing the FACT that the people have a right to arms.
Think you could point that part out to me?
The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.
Having just read the entirety of your link I find no instance of anyone disputing the FACT that the people have a right to arms.
Think you could point that part out to me?
I like the part where the only part actually removed from the Amendment was the exception for conscientious objectors. If the basic intent was to actually require people to bear arms he cannot argue that the debate was over whether they would be allowed to.
The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.
First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia
Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.
So, what was that about the Second being clear?
Seems pretty clear to me.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3
On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.
All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.
First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia
Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.
So, what was that about the Second being clear?
Seems pretty clear to me.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3
On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.
All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.
I read quite well, thank you. Let's put a bit more emphasis on each phrase framed by the intent of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and 16.
The topic phrase in bold is this: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people (of the several states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Reading the amendment in this manner suggests the Second was proposed because each state still held fears about a strong central government and wanted to the amendment to defend their State from the central government. Your proof ignored the debate on several levels and I suspect you skipped through the entire link until you found a phrase which supported the conclusion you had at the beginning.
There were dozens of proposals put forth on this one amendment and most dealt with the matter of standing armies vis a vis militia's and not with an individuals right to bear arms. I suspect every rural American in 1789 owned a rifle and it never occurred to the founder's that the right to bear such a gun would ever be infringed.
The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.
some people work Wry.....i know that is a tough one to think about....and it is a Holiday.....
The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run. Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit. Pitiful.
