Why was the second amendment written?

[progressive hunter]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

You aren't much on history, are you? While the framers were mostly men of means, some of them earned their way into a life of luxury. They created the greatest nation in the annals of history where even a poor boy like Benjamin Franklin could become rich. They opened that door to everybody.

I think it should be noted that most of the founders after the revolution ended up poor or dead,,,just sayin.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

You aren't much on history, are you? While the framers were mostly men of means, some of them earned their way into a life of luxury. They created the greatest nation in the annals of history where even a poor boy like Benjamin Franklin could become rich. They opened that door to everybody.

They "founded" what has become a corrupt 3rd world banana republic upon illegal immigration, ethnic cleansing and slavery. And only white males of the aristocracy were granted representation via a vote. Everyone else was/were nonpersons.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

Want in one hand and crap in the other. See which one fills up first. You cannot infringe on an unalienable Right. You would be well served to take a civics course before engaging in this conversation.

 

[Blues Man]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

 

[Blues Man]

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns

FYI Accused is not the same as convicted

 

[Porter Rockwell]

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

You aren't much on history, are you? While the framers were mostly men of means, some of them earned their way into a life of luxury. They created the greatest nation in the annals of history where even a poor boy like Benjamin Franklin could become rich. They opened that door to everybody.

They "founded" what has become a corrupt 3rd world banana republic upon illegal immigration, ethnic cleansing and slavery. And only white males of the aristocracy were granted representation via a vote. Everyone else was/were nonpersons.

There are at least 14 countries today that are racially / ethnically homogeneous. There are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth. Approximately 91.5 percent of the Chinese in China are of one race. Both North and South Korea are racially homogeneous (over 98 percent each.) Japan claims to be the most racially pure nation in the world, but even at 97 percent of it being homogeneous, it isn't as pure as some smaller countries that exceed 98 percent one race. Zimbabwe is 99.7 percent black.

I'd bet dollars against doughnuts that if I came over to your home and tossed every product that came from China, Japan, North Korea and South Korea, you wouldn't have much left. Making much ado over America's racial policies is a sick joke.

The reason America was founded by whites was due to the simple fact that they saw themselves as the Israelites of the Bible and America was the regathering spot for the New Jerusalem. Take a look at this sermon, delivered in 1630 aboard the ship the Arbella as it sailed toward the New World. So enduring is this sermon that it has been cited by statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

Insofar as slavery is concerned, the whites did not invent that institution. You would be hard pressed to make a moral case against it. In the Bible, Abraham had slaves. The Muslims had slaves thousands of years before the colonists ever considered it. Furthermore, the framers outlawed the future importation of slaves into America when they ratified the Constitution. You may want to read Article I Section 9 of the Constitution.

You conflate Liberty with citizenship. You are attempting to blame whites for the shortcomings of people in other nations while not acknowledging that, even today, more racist societies exist and slavery is still practiced by non-whites. Let's face it: You hate whites so you hate on Liberty and unalienable Rights as the ideas are unique to the white mans race and culture, developed by his unique experiences and the history / religion he brought with him here.

"My" system has been taken over by a mixed multitude of people that hate, loathe and despise our foundational principles - just as your are demonstrating. "My" system was co opted by those waging a war of genocide against the posterity of the founders on the pretext of race, while not imposing the same standards on the rest of the world.

You're falling short of making a case against Liberty.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns

FYI Accused is not the same as convicted

Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.

 

[westwall]

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers. Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.

They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.

No, they weren't you ignorant clod. The merchant class and the bankers, were, and have always been, the collectors of wealth.

Much like your "job creator" class who we subsidize with socialism.

They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.
Click to expand...

No, we don't support with socialism. They have corrupted the system to their advantage. it is called "crony capitalism" and is in fact fascism light. I want those scumbags tried for their crimes every bit as much as the scumbag politicians who sold their souls to them.

 

[westwall]

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

And, driving a car is a privilege. Not a Right.

Depends upon how wealthy you are. Corruption is fine and dandy for the aristocracy. We see that daily.

Guess what hon, it works the same for the ruling class no matter which system it is. That's why the Founders at least made sure that WE had the ability to own guns too. Not just the elites as was the case for hundreds of years. And here you are wanting to give up the power of the PEOPLE, and give it to the ruling class.

Which makes you either the stupidest moron on the planet, or more likely, one of their agents.

 

[westwall]

Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely. Why don't you support Trump? Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system. A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.

No thanks.

I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all. Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.

Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.

No thanks.

Your labels are meaningless and irrelevant.

Yet accurate.

No, meaningless and irrelevant are not accurate.

Actually, they are. You try and ignore them, but you do so at your peril, buckwheat.

 

[depotoo]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

We were under the rule of Great Britain at the time and their military fought us at the time to try to prevent our independence.
So, a military derived from our government is just as capable as the one that threatened us then as ours could be now. It was included in response to the fact that a government can become a tyrant to its own. But the possibility is lessened when its citizenry is armed. The founder’s papers document that fact well.

 

[beautress]

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers. Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.

They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.

Actually, they did a favor to anyone condemned to die in Africa in which the village overlord pawned off on unsuspecting slavetraders.

Just think of it like this aggravated torture and death, or ferry ride to America where you get work and 3 squares a day.

Again:
aggravated torture and death in Africa or Ferry ride to America, work & 3 squares
Again:
aggravated torture and death in Africa or Ferry ride to America, work & 3 squares

Not to mention clothing and rent-free living and a whole lotta lovin'.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers. Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.

They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.

Actually, they did a favor to anyone condemned to die in Africa in which the village overlord pawned off on unsuspecting slavetraders.

Just think of it like this aggravated torture and death, or ferry ride to America where you get work and 3 squares a day.

Again:
aggravated torture and death in Africa or Ferry ride to America, work & 3 squares
Again:
aggravated torture and death in Africa or Ferry ride to America, work & 3 squares

Not to mention clothing and rent-free living and a whole lotta lovin'.

The whole slavery thing is a convenient pretext for left wing communists to deflect and avoid a serious discussion about gun control.

I get so sick hearing about slavery and watching liberals and blacks pretend to be so hurt and offended by the subject that I want to vomit. Those hypocrites NEVER give a fleeting thought to the blacks that sold their brethren into slavery. They never mention the big slaving companies by name. These people never mention the fact that from 1620 (when the first governing document of the New World was written) all the way up to the War of Independence (aka the Revolutionary War), America was under British jurisdiction. Do the hypocrites ask for Hellfire and brimstone to be rained on the "aristocracy?" Are you kidding? They fall all over themselves that the blacks have intermarried into the Royal family.

Americans treated slaves better than any slave holding country in recorded history. Here is a link to one of my favorite books on the subject. Slaves lived better than their blue collar Anglo Saxon contemporaries. It is WELL worth your time to read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20

The OP wanted to know why the Second Amendment was written. As someone so eloquently put it many years ago: the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. As the posterity of the founders find themselves under a greater and greater attack by liberals, revisionists, and people wanting a free ride predicated on misrepresentations of history, the more we find the answer to why the Second Amendment was written.

 

[Blues Man]

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns

FYI Accused is not the same as convicted

Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.

Prison is punishment

Criminals choose to commit crimes

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[westwall]

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.

Sounds like a great plan. ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. If you do that crime drops. Great. Do it.

 

[westwall]

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns

FYI Accused is not the same as convicted

Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.

Prison is punishment

Criminals choose to commit crimes

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Exactly. 8% of the criminal population commits 80% of the violent crimes.

Lock them up, and throw away the key.

Problem solved.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

When the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work

No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.

When the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a year



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns

FYI Accused is not the same as convicted

Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.

Prison is punishment

Criminals choose to commit crimes

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:

1) Punish the offender

2) Get restitution for victims when possible

3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.

Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.