Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[Brain357]

Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn' and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!

The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

 

[2aguy]

Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn' and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!

The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

And we are leaving.....essentially we are being driven out...by the lack of the will to fight....

 

[Brain357]

Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.

You have no idea what you are talking about.......at all......please....learn something...go to thearmedcitizen site...or thetruthaobutguns and actually read the stories of actual people who actually use guns for self defense.....if you did that...and did some research you would see you are completely wrong...

Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack on average 1.6 million times a year...an average taken from 16 different studies on actual gun use in self defense...

And about 230 criminals are shot in defense each year. So I wouldn't recommend buying into those surveys. They have been debunked in many ways. But there is no doubt people use guns in defense. I feel the NCVS number are much closer with reality at 108,000 a year.

Again....law abiding citizens are not out to kill people, even criminals...so most gun defenses never involve firiing the gun.....and again....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on the self defense use of guns.....it is about crime victimization so there is no way it is even close to being accurate...

My number of 1.6 million times comes from averaging 16 different actual studies on Americans using guns for self defense, done by different independent researchers, from both public and private research groups, with many of them anti gun...and others which are neutral.........

So 108,000 is not even close to being the accurate number....

Over 20 year old studies. Crime has come down over 30% since those were done. How do you account for that in your 1.6 number?

I didn't. Barak obama did...he commissioned the CDC to look at all the research to date, even stuff I don't have, and he did this in 2013 and spent 10 million dollars doing it.......and he came back with the numbers between 500,000 and 3 million, so my number is right in the middle of his, an anti gunner, research.......complain to him.....

And thanks for pointing out that while more Americans own and carry guns for protection...the crime rate has gone down, not up.....and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up.........

500 is 1/3 of your 1.6. and well if it is 3 million than that means there have been 90 million defenses the last 30 year? That's more than one for every gun owner in the country. Yet I have tons of gun owner friends and family who have never had one. Not believable.

 

[Brain357]

Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn' and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!

The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

 

[2aguy]

The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

Hmmm...yet we are still in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea.....and those wars ended when?

 

[2aguy]

You have no idea what you are talking about.......at all......please....learn something...go to thearmedcitizen site...or thetruthaobutguns and actually read the stories of actual people who actually use guns for self defense.....if you did that...and did some research you would see you are completely wrong...

Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack on average 1.6 million times a year...an average taken from 16 different studies on actual gun use in self defense...

And about 230 criminals are shot in defense each year. So I wouldn't recommend buying into those surveys. They have been debunked in many ways. But there is no doubt people use guns in defense. I feel the NCVS number are much closer with reality at 108,000 a year.

Again....law abiding citizens are not out to kill people, even criminals...so most gun defenses never involve firiing the gun.....and again....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on the self defense use of guns.....it is about crime victimization so there is no way it is even close to being accurate...

My number of 1.6 million times comes from averaging 16 different actual studies on Americans using guns for self defense, done by different independent researchers, from both public and private research groups, with many of them anti gun...and others which are neutral.........

So 108,000 is not even close to being the accurate number....

Over 20 year old studies. Crime has come down over 30% since those were done. How do you account for that in your 1.6 number?

I didn't. Barak obama did...he commissioned the CDC to look at all the research to date, even stuff I don't have, and he did this in 2013 and spent 10 million dollars doing it.......and he came back with the numbers between 500,000 and 3 million, so my number is right in the middle of his, an anti gunner, research.......complain to him.....

And thanks for pointing out that while more Americans own and carry guns for protection...the crime rate has gone down, not up.....and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up.........

500 is 1/3 of your 1.6. and well if it is 3 million than that means there have been 90 million defenses the last 30 year? That's more than one for every gun owner in the country. Yet I have tons of gun owner friends and family who have never had one. Not believable.

Sorry....16 studies conducted by actual researchers say you are wrong.....that trumps what you feel........

 

[M14 Shooter]

I load this board.
Never a day goes by when its members prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and.or dishonesty.
Please do keep up the good work.

 

[pismoe]

good point , USA still in Korea , Japan , Germany . mrobama was just doing as his friends wanted him to do , amazing that mrobama was elected twice . That alone says quite a bit about the intelligence of his supporters that are here arguing for gun control !!

 

[Brain357]

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

Hmmm...yet we are still in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea.....and those wars ended when?

We have basses there. When was the last time they did any fighting? It's much more expensive when there is actual fighting.

 

[2aguy]

The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

And do you think our government...in the face of 88 million gun owners wouldn't decide to not murder our citizens?

 

[2aguy]

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

Hmmm...yet we are still in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea.....and those wars ended when?

We have basses there. When was the last time they did any fighting? It's much more expensive when there is actual fighting.

And we didn't reach the point of not fighting for quite a while.....and we are still there....

 

[pismoe]

we have bases there because after kicking their azzes in the case of Japan and Germany the USA decided to stick around by agreement . As far as Korea , might be fighting there in the morning , the war has never ended !!

 

[Brain357]

And about 230 criminals are shot in defense each year. So I wouldn't recommend buying into those surveys. They have been debunked in many ways. But there is no doubt people use guns in defense. I feel the NCVS number are much closer with reality at 108,000 a year.

Again....law abiding citizens are not out to kill people, even criminals...so most gun defenses never involve firiing the gun.....and again....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on the self defense use of guns.....it is about crime victimization so there is no way it is even close to being accurate...

My number of 1.6 million times comes from averaging 16 different actual studies on Americans using guns for self defense, done by different independent researchers, from both public and private research groups, with many of them anti gun...and others which are neutral.........

So 108,000 is not even close to being the accurate number....

Over 20 year old studies. Crime has come down over 30% since those were done. How do you account for that in your 1.6 number?

I didn't. Barak obama did...he commissioned the CDC to look at all the research to date, even stuff I don't have, and he did this in 2013 and spent 10 million dollars doing it.......and he came back with the numbers between 500,000 and 3 million, so my number is right in the middle of his, an anti gunner, research.......complain to him.....

And thanks for pointing out that while more Americans own and carry guns for protection...the crime rate has gone down, not up.....and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up.........

500 is 1/3 of your 1.6. and well if it is 3 million than that means there have been 90 million defenses the last 30 year? That's more than one for every gun owner in the country. Yet I have tons of gun owner friends and family who have never had one. Not believable.

Sorry....16 studies conducted by actual researchers say you are wrong.....that trumps what you feel........

Several of those surveys say it is only 800k. That would make you off by 100% too high. And those were over 20 years ago so subtract 30%. The 1.6 is way off. But what really trumps everything is the 230 criminals shot and killed in defense. No way people are pulling guns on criminals over a million times and only 230 get killed. Over 600 are killed each year just in accidental shootings.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently evolving, and indeed that process has just started.

It could be decades before a comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment right is codified in case law, likely requiring the Supreme Court to weight in with regard to a number of regulatory measures.

Until that time, however, firearm regulatory policy that has been ruled Constitutional by the Federal courts, such as magazine capacity requirements and licensing fees, as well as measures not yet subject to judicial review, do not 'violate' the Second Amendment, nor do they seek to 'infringe' on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

To argue otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.

And what good do regulations and laws do against criminals who most of the time obtain their guns through illegal means?

Well, not to put to fine a point on it, ChrisL, but how can a person get firearms through illegal means unless there are laws against them getting guns?

Say that again?

 

[toxicmedia]

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

And do you think our government...in the face of 88 million gun owners wouldn't decide to not murder our citizens?

That's put in a very confusing way.

How about "do you think our government would decide to murder our citizens in the face of 88 miliion gun owners?"

First, the government wouldn't try to murder the citizens.

Second, if they did, they'd bomb them from the air, and it wouldn't matter what kind of home protection you have.

 

[Brain357]

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

And do you think our government...in the face of 88 million gun owners wouldn't decide to not murder our citizens?

I think that has nothing to do with it. I think our troops are the best people we have. With 24/7 news, cell phones, and the internet nobody can ever fool them into attacking citizens. Those days are long past. That is why so many countries where the citizens have no guns are also safe.

 

[pismoe]

yeah currently EVOLVING jurisprudence , libs love that concept , they like the so called Evolving Constitution rather than the plain and understandable reading of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights .

 

[2aguy]

Again....law abiding citizens are not out to kill people, even criminals...so most gun defenses never involve firiing the gun.....and again....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on the self defense use of guns.....it is about crime victimization so there is no way it is even close to being accurate...

My number of 1.6 million times comes from averaging 16 different actual studies on Americans using guns for self defense, done by different independent researchers, from both public and private research groups, with many of them anti gun...and others which are neutral.........

So 108,000 is not even close to being the accurate number....

Over 20 year old studies. Crime has come down over 30% since those were done. How do you account for that in your 1.6 number?

I didn't. Barak obama did...he commissioned the CDC to look at all the research to date, even stuff I don't have, and he did this in 2013 and spent 10 million dollars doing it.......and he came back with the numbers between 500,000 and 3 million, so my number is right in the middle of his, an anti gunner, research.......complain to him.....

And thanks for pointing out that while more Americans own and carry guns for protection...the crime rate has gone down, not up.....and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up.........

500 is 1/3 of your 1.6. and well if it is 3 million than that means there have been 90 million defenses the last 30 year? That's more than one for every gun owner in the country. Yet I have tons of gun owner friends and family who have never had one. Not believable.

Sorry....16 studies conducted by actual researchers say you are wrong.....that trumps what you feel........

Several of those surveys say it is only 800k. That would make you off by 100% too high. And those were over 20 years ago so subtract 30%. The 1.6 is way off. But what really trumps everything is the 230 criminals shot and killed in defense. No way people are pulling guns on criminals over a million times and only 230 get killed. Over 600 are killed each year just in accidental shootings.

Brain...feelings have no place in research...which is why so many anti-gun researchers lie in their methods.....

 

[2aguy]

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “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”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

And do you think our government...in the face of 88 million gun owners wouldn't decide to not murder our citizens?

That's put in a very confusing way.

How about "do you think our government would decide to murder our citizens in the face of 88 miliion gun owners?"

First, the government wouldn't try to murder the citizens.

Second, if they did, they'd bomb them from the air, and it wouldn't matter what kind of home protection you have.

Sorry.....small, well led, well armed forces have forced larger better armed forces to give up......in particular us against muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.......the dems didn't want to win, and pulled us out.....

 

[toxicmedia]

Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s vs. our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........

We weren't driven out, we ran them over. It was policing them we didn't want to do forever. Nor can we afford to do it.

We are deciding to leave, not being driven out. Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.

And do you think our government...in the face of 88 million gun owners wouldn't decide to not murder our citizens?

That's put in a very confusing way.

How about "do you think our government would decide to murder our citizens in the face of 88 miliion gun owners?"

First, the government wouldn't try to murder the citizens.

Second, if they did, they'd bomb them from the air, and it wouldn't matter what kind of home protection you have.

Sorry.....small, well led, well armed forces have forced larger better armed forces to give up......in particular us against muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.......the dems didn't want to win, and pulled us out.....

Ummm, no.

Your scenario includes the government killing citizens, not armed insurgents, or terrorists.

If they didn't try and pussy foot around colaterals...they'd have easilly wiped out everybody in Afghanistan and Iraq....flat like a parking lot.

So maybe you should clarify exactly what this "government killing citizens" would be like.