The Right To Bear Arms

[bigrebnc1775]

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was correct and ahead of his time.

Miller vs. U.S.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't believe the second amendment is obsolete ... like everything in the constitution its always up for change, if the majority wants it, and its constitutional ... our founding fathers never thought that they would have a musket that would fire 100 rounds a minute ... they clearly felt that you as a citizen should have the right to defend yourself ... here's where we have the problem ... the constitution says you have a right to defend your self to what point ... where is the cut off point ... I don't believe that a citizen should have any weapon that fire 100 round a minute ... I feel a rifle or a hand gun is suffisant for any citizen to defend themselves ... I as a far left, tree hugging, leftie liberal, feel you have a right to have a gun ... but not a gun that fires 100, 50, 30, 25 bullets an minute

You forgot one major thing the Founders feared the most that was tyranny, that was their intent for the second amendment. They expected every citizen to have access to the same firearms the government would have, and they never intend for the government to have a standing army.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The number one cause of VIOLENT death in the last 120 years:


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So (if you read the above post), if anything, the 2nd Amendment is more needed now than back in the 18th Century. However, the powers that be, that wish to genocide you, want to think its as obsolete as muskets, while they monopolize force to kill you.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Read Federalist 28:

usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.

 

[Bfgrn]

Federalist 28

Summary

In this paper, Hamilton acknowledges that there may be times in which the government must use force to maintain law and order. However, he contends that this is an unavoidable possibility in any political system. He argues that having a standing army, as opposed to just a militia, will be necessary at times to subdue large scale domestic insurrections or foreign aggression.

Hamilton emphasizes that the people need not fear the military establishment because it will be controlled by a government run by the representatives of the people. However, if for some reason, the representatives of the people were to betray their constituents, the people would be better able to resist “the usurpation of the national rulers” than “those of the rulers of an individual state.” If the national government were to use standing armies to usurp power, the people could rally around the state governments and resist the national rulers. The larger the polity, the harder it is for a government to gain absolute control.

In the system designed by the proposed constitution, the state governments would act as natural checks on the national government and vice versa: “power being almost always the rival of power.” However, if each state were totally independent and no national army existed, then state governments could more easily violate the rights of the people, who would have very limited means for organizing a strong resistance.

Analysis

In this paper, Hamilton is describing a hypothetical worst-case scenario. Although it may seem unthinkable in 21st century America, the Americans of the 18th century were deeply concerned about an excessively powerful national government using the military to oppress the people. Hamilton is arguing that not only is a national military at times necessary to ensure public safety, but, even were this military to become an instrument of tyranny, the state governments would act as natural centers of resistance.

Hamilton frequently takes the approach of acknowledging a widespread fear among the population—e.g., the fear of violent usurpation of political liberties—and then using a hypothetical situation to illustrate how the proposed constitution offers the best protection against that fear. However, Hamilton also buttresses his hypothetical with current events in order to make his arguments more plausible to his audience. In this paper, he refers to New York state’s claim to certain sections of Vermont to illustrate that, although militias can deal with small local issues, they will not be sufficient to deal with major conflicts.

 

[hunarcy]

Obama says he supports the individual protection of the 2A.

So do I and most responsible gun owners. It's the extremist views of the NRA gun nuts that many of us don't support.

The NRA is only considered "extremist" to those who seek to take away rights from law abiding, responsible gun owners. To the rest of the world, it's an organization which represents law abiding, responsible gun owners as they seek to exercise their rights within the confines of the law.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama says he supports the individual protection of the 2A.

So do I and most responsible gun owners. It's the extremist views of the NRA gun nuts that many of us don't support.

The NRA is only considered "extremist" to those who seek to take away rights from law abiding, responsible gun owners. To the rest of the world, it's an organization which represents law abiding, responsible gun owners as they seek to exercise their rights within the confines of the law.

The NRA is a front group for gun manufacturers. They have successfully lobbied to pass laws that totally excuse gun manufacturers of ANY liability, even from manufacturer defects. The NRA take the heat to keep those gun manufacturers protected from scrutiny and criticism.

There is NO concern by gun manufacturers or the NRA as to WHO buys a gun. The more the better. Criminals, murderers and the mentally ill are PAYING CUSTOMERS, nothing more and nothing less.

Get you head out of your naive ass.

 

[P@triot]

True.

Liberals have consistently advocated for the rights of individuals and restriction of the state, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion

Of course liberals want "restriction" on the state when they want to MURDER someone. I mean, you can't want government involved when it comes to killing. Any other time though, you want the state 100% in full control.

equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples

Um, how is that "restriction of the state" when you're demanding the state get directly involved and recognize a union?

due process rights for minorities and immigrants.

They already have that genius. You can't even list 3 legitimate items that you liberals want to see restraint of government on, that you have to actually list things that already exist

Seriously, do you think anybody believes the nonsense you spew?!?

 

[P@triot]

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was correct and ahead of his time.

No, he wasn't. He was as radical and as dumb as you are. Case closed.

 

[P@triot]

In a 14-minute instructional and debunk clip, Campbell narrates why a ban on high-capacity magazine sizes is ineffective, showcasing — through examples — the idea’s purported deficiencies.

“I think it’s a great fallacy to believe that it would,” he said candidly. “You’ve got a standard capacity versus a 10 round. From a citizen standpoint…all we’re doing is making it more difficult for [people] to defend themselves against bad guys.”

He said that those who break the law aren’t concerned with abiding by regulations, so creating magazine capacity restrictions simply doesn’t make sense. The law abiding will follow, but criminals, naturally, won’t.

“By limiting the access to standard magazines…I think you are restricting a good American’s opportunity to protect himself and his family,” the sheriff continued

The clip concludes by noting that proposed magazine size changes don’t truly pass “the common sense test.”

Yes, but when has an ignorant dumbocrat policy ever passed the "common sense test"? The next time will be the first time.

It just makes sense that when it comes to firearms, we should listen to firearms experts and law enforcement instead of liberal bureaucrats who have never even held a firearm in their life.

Sheriff Debunks Gun Magazine ?Fallacies? in This Viral Vid (Plus: His Response to Biden?s Shotgun Advice) | TheBlaze.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

State and federal courts and legislatures continue to restrict the 2nd Amendment. Go states' rights!

Can you show the comelling state interest in enacting these restrictions?
Can you show that these restrictions are an effective means to achive these interest, and the lest restrictive means to do so?
If not, they violate the 2nd; should they make it to court they will be struck.

 

[regent]

Seems like the only answer to this problem is have the government issue a gun to every citizen. Not to kids under the age of five, however, they wouldn't keep em clean and get sticky candy all over them.
Each citizen would then be rated for a magazine, the bigger the taxes paid the bigger the magazine. The Trumps of America would get a magazine holding 10,000 rounds, and a bonus drone. The entitlement citizens, a blank round. The politicians of the right party also get a new tank others a jeep.
Second Amendment saved and problem solved.

 

[Contumacious]

The NRA is a front group for gun manufacturers. .

Bfgrn is the spokesman for mentally retarded socialists.

.

 

[P@triot]

Seems like the only answer to this problem is have the government issue a gun to every citizen. Not to kids under the age of five, however, they wouldn't keep em clean and get sticky candy all over them.
Each citizen would then be rated for a magazine, the bigger the taxes paid the bigger the magazine. The Trumps of America would get a magazine holding 10,000 rounds, and a bonus drone. The entitlement citizens, a blank round. The politicians of the right party also get a new tank others a jeep.
Second Amendment saved and problem solved.

No, the only answer to this problem is (like all problems) to get the government the fuck out of the issue.

The government issuing anything just creates more problems. When they started issuing food stamps, subsidized housing, and medicaid, all they managed to accomplish is grow the number in poverty in this nation and create a larger base of government-dependent parasites.

 

[Bfgrn]

The NRA is a front group for gun manufacturers. .

Bfgrn is the spokesman for mentally retarded socialists.

.

New Evidence that the NRA Might Be Just Another Corporate Front

Mainstream Media Downplay NRA's Close Ties to Gun Industry

Here's Who The NRA REALLY Represents

NRA Gun Control Crusade Reflects Firearms Industry Financial Ties

 

[Nosmo King]

Seems like the only answer to this problem is have the government issue a gun to every citizen. Not to kids under the age of five, however, they wouldn't keep em clean and get sticky candy all over them.
Each citizen would then be rated for a magazine, the bigger the taxes paid the bigger the magazine. The Trumps of America would get a magazine holding 10,000 rounds, and a bonus drone. The entitlement citizens, a blank round. The politicians of the right party also get a new tank others a jeep.
Second Amendment saved and problem solved.

No, the only answer to this problem is (like all problems) to get the government the fuck out of the issue.

The government issuing anything just creates more problems. When they started issuing food stamps, subsidized housing, and medicaid, all they managed to accomplish is grow the number in poverty in this nation and create a larger base of government-dependent parasites.

How has government getting out of the issue worked for say crime? And could you provide proof that social welfare programs have increased poverty? Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and neither are opinions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And could you provide proof that social welfare programs have increased poverty? Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and neither are opinions.

are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.

 

[Nosmo King]

And could you provide proof that social welfare programs have increased poverty? Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and neither are opinions.

are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.

Show me. Prove it. Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence. Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And could you provide proof that social welfare programs have increased poverty? Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and neither are opinions.

are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.

Show me. Prove it. Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence. Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.

too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!

The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????

What planet were you on????