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.
Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?
We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us
How else are they "well regulated"?
madison intended it to be protection against our own government
Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?
We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us
How else are they "well regulated"?
madison intended it to be protection against our own government
Madison is not the Constitution
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
Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?
We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us
How else are they "well regulated"?
madison intended it to be protection against our own government
Madison is not the Constitution
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
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.madison intended it to be protection against our own government
Madison is not the Constitution
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
madison wrote the second amendment, in fact he wrote most of them. so yea, in a sense he is.
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.Madison is not the Constitution
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
madison wrote the second amendment, in fact he wrote most of them. so yea, in a sense he is.
No amount of whining, crying, or lying from the anti-gun loons will change that.
madison intended it to be protection against our own government
Madison is not the Constitution
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
madison wrote the second amendment, in fact he wrote most of them. so yea, in a sense he is.
When you talk to someone that is wrong on purpose, you waste your time.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.madison wrote the second amendment, in fact he wrote most of them. so yea, in a sense he is.
No amount of whining, crying, or lying from the anti-gun loons will change that.
in madisons own words it was for protection of the individual and protection against the federal government as well. he was trying to prevent the tyranny he and all of the founding fathers had experienced at the hands of the monarchy. he also clearly intended the citizens be armed as well and with equal equipment as the central army. he also clearly stated ther were to be organized by themselves with leaders chosen by themselves. Not regulated by the government
"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and it would not be going too far to say that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to my best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves." James Madison, The Federalist Papers 46.
Madison is not the Constitution
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
madison wrote the second amendment, in fact he wrote most of them. so yea, in a sense he is.
I'm afraid not
The Constitution was ratified by the states not James Madison
How would registration infringe when no one is stopping your purchase?Since I'm so stupid, please show where in the Constitution it prohibits a gun registry. Or where you are afforded any privacy at all for your gun purchases.Each time you post, you leave no one guessing as to the level of stupidity with which you post.
Show us all how smart you are!
If you were told that your micro wanking were not to be infringed, what would you take that to mean? That it cannot be infringed or that it can be infringed. Why do liberals claim to be the smartest people in the room when they can't even understand simple concepts or words. How do you remember to breathe?
Really?Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?
We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us
How else are they "well regulated"?
madison intended it to be protection against our own government
And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter.[It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. ]Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
.
Turned off your supersize
How then is a "well regulated militia" in proper working order?
It has a set organizational structure with established responsibilities
It trains its members
It meets regularly
It meets certain standards
How do todays gun owners support a well regulated militia?
It is a willful act of government to violate the 4th Amendment.How would registration infringe when no one is stopping your purchase?Since I'm so stupid, please show where in the Constitution it prohibits a gun registry. Or where you are afforded any privacy at all for your gun purchases.
Show us all how smart you are!
If you were told that your micro wanking were not to be infringed, what would you take that to mean? That it cannot be infringed or that it can be infringed. Why do liberals claim to be the smartest people in the room when they can't even understand simple concepts or words. How do you remember to breathe?
Guess what My weapons falls under? I'll bet you don't even understand.Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Registration does not stop a woman from having an abortion, and so forcing a woman to registrer with the state before she has an abortion does not infringe on her right to same.How would registration infringe when no one is stopping your purchase?Since I'm so stupid, please show where in the Constitution it prohibits a gun registry. Or where you are afforded any privacy at all for your gun purchases.
Show us all how smart you are!
If you were told that your micro wanking were not to be infringed, what would you take that to mean? That it cannot be infringed or that it can be infringed. Why do liberals claim to be the smartest people in the room when they can't even understand simple concepts or words. How do you remember to breathe?
The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
---------------------------------
That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.
Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.
No it doesn't
Let's say that is, in fact, the case/correct interpretation.The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
---------------------------------
That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.
Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.
james madison clearly explained what his intentions were in the federalist papers. why do libs ignore the words of the author?
Let's say that is, in fact, the case/correct interpretation.The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
---------------------------------
That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.
Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.
All right's have limits, from the first, right on up. Remember, you have the right to say anything, anywhere you want, however you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room. That is illegal.
At what point does one citizen's right to own a gun impedes on another's right to personal safety?
james madison clearly explained what his intentions were in the federalist papers. why do libs ignore the words of the author?
So you're for guns unrestricted, Gun, Inc. Gunz Galore, Guns Across America, non stop guns, etc., etc., etc....correct?Let's say that is, in fact, the case/correct interpretation.The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
---------------------------------
That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.
Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.
All right's have limits, from the first, right on up. Remember, you have the right to say anything, anywhere you want, however you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room. That is illegal.
At what point does one citizen's right to own a gun impedes on another's right to personal safety?
james madison clearly explained what his intentions were in the federalist papers. why do libs ignore the words of the author?
Banning types of weapons because of how they look is not a REASONABLE restriction. Banning magazines because they hold more rounds then you like is not a REASONABLE restriction. Banning semi automatics is directly against numerous Supreme Court decisions.
registering gun owners is neither reasonable nor Constitutional.
Sounds like you're hanging everything on the Supreme Court. So you'd be just fine if/when they rule in another direction in the not-too-distant future....yes?The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter.[It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. ]Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
.
Turned off your supersize
How then is a "well regulated militia" in proper working order?
It has a set organizational structure with established responsibilities
It trains its members
It meets regularly
It meets certain standards
How do todays gun owners support a well regulated militia?
It does not matter that most States maintain no militia, the right to be armed is separate from the States right to form militias. Or have you not read the Supreme Court ruling?
So you're for guns unrestricted, Gun, Inc. Gunz Galore, Guns Across America, non stop guns, etc., etc., etc....correct?Let's say that is, in fact, the case/correct interpretation.
All right's have limits, from the first, right on up. Remember, you have the right to say anything, anywhere you want, however you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room. That is illegal.
At what point does one citizen's right to own a gun impedes on another's right to personal safety?
Banning types of weapons because of how they look is not a REASONABLE restriction. Banning magazines because they hold more rounds then you like is not a REASONABLE restriction. Banning semi automatics is directly against numerous Supreme Court decisions.
registering gun owners is neither reasonable nor Constitutional.
Sounds like you're hanging everything on the Supreme Court. So you'd be just fine if/when they rule in another direction in the not-too-distant future....yes?Turned off your supersize
How then is a "well regulated militia" in proper working order?
It has a set organizational structure with established responsibilities
It trains its members
It meets regularly
It meets certain standards
How do todays gun owners support a well regulated militia?
It does not matter that most States maintain no militia, the right to be armed is separate from the States right to form militias. Or have you not read the Supreme Court ruling?
