Keeping the Second Amendment

[JackFTwist]

Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms uninfringed is dependent on the people being members of a well regulated militia.

Ergo, all firearms must be well regulated, and those that keep them must belong to said militias.

It is time to begin to remove the gun/rifle arms from those who do not belong to the militia, totally under the regulations of the state, to enforce this amendment. And that is keeping the 2nd Amendment.


"Those who live by the sword die by the sword." Jesus

 

[Negasta]

If you notice, the second part of the amendment states that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.

Why do American liberals like to so much to piss on the Second Amendment but want to enshrine all the others in a fucking cathedral.

"How could that hack Jefferson have dared to write in an amendment that makes me feel uncomfortable!?"

Separation of church and state makes some fundamentalists feel uncomfortable, but would you allow them to remove the barrier between religion and government?

If you take away a person's means to defend themselves, you take away their right to defend themselves.

If you want to be a pussy and cower in closet while you call the police when somebody breaks into your house, good for you, but give those who are man enough to take care of the problem themselves, the option to do so.

 

[sixthson]

If you notice, the second part of the amendment states that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.

Why do American liberals like to so much to piss on the Second Amendment but want to enshrine all the others in a fucking cathedral.

"How could that hack Jefferson have dared to write in an amendment that makes me feel uncomfortable!?"

Separation of church and state makes some fundamentalists feel uncomfortable, but would you allow them to remove the barrier between religion and government?

If you take away a person's means to defend themselves, you take away their right to defend themselves.

If you want to be a pussy and cower in closet while you call the police when somebody breaks into your house, good for you, but give those who are man enough to take care of the problem themselves, the option to do so.

Very well said, Negasta!

 

[Andreus]

the founders of america did not envision a society where 16 year old children are allowed to use semi automatic weapons to wage war on peace officers.

you guys know that

sad that you cant admit it

all statistics show that america is one of the most violent societies the planet has ever seen, and guns are at the heart of the violence

decent people see that our children are more important than our right to kill deer with semi automatic weapons

this is a non issue that is intended to rile up the party members and raise angst against the new majority party

 

[Negasta]

the founders of america did not envision a society where 16 year old children are allowed to use semi automatic weapons to wage war on peace officers.

Where the hell in American law does it say that "16 year old children are allowed to use semi automatic weapons to wage war on peace officers"?

all statistics show that america is one of the most violent societies the planet has ever seen, and guns are at the heart of the violence

Bullshit! It is the whole American culture that fosters violence, not guns, how come it has only been in recent years that violence has surged as it has, but for centuries before that, Americans had millions of privately owned guns?

People were killing each other long before there were guns. If you take away guns, people will find other ways to kill each other.

decent people see that our children are more important than our right to kill deer with semi automatic weapons

My right to defend my family and children against the scum of the earth is far more important than your right to feel good in your little zone of comfort.

If you want to take away guns, take them away from the goddamn gang bangers and other criminals before taking them away from law abiding citizens.

this is a non issue that is intended to rile up the party members and raise angst against the new majority party

The Republicunts have their pet curtailments of civil rights, namely the anti-First & Fourth Amendment tendencies they foster, and so do Demopussies, namely the destruction of the Second Amendment rights of the American people.

 

[Andreus]

cute language there buddy

funny i never noticed that the bad guys who kill people care what the legal age limit is for gun possesion. they are usually stolen from law abiding citizens and used in crime.

there are no studies that indicate that you are more capable of defending your family if you are in possesion of firearms.

many firearms are actually used against the owners.

the wife and kids need protection do they? interesting.

lastly...

my comfort zone has nothing to do with it. You dont know me in any way. I have walked in placed that you would run from crying to mommy, so curb your insults and arrogance.

 

[smelter]

The Republicunts have their pet curtailments of civil rights, namely the anti-First & Fourth Amendment tendencies they foster, and so do Demopussies, namely the destruction of the Second Amendment rights of the American people.

Since I'm a registered Democrat, I guess that lumps me into the Demopussies group. I own guns but have no desire to own a semi-automatic weapon. I'm not into the free-fire mindset of the military, who have unlimited funds to buy bullets.

I prefer to practice a few times a year with my guns to keep them sighted-in and in proper working order. If someone breaks into my home, I want it to be a clean shot so I don't have to replace an entire wall in my house. You can call me old-fashioned but don't call me a Demopussy.

P.S. ... besides, I always thought it was Republipussies and Democunts.

 

[Negasta]

Buddy, I live in South Africa, our rates of murder and rape would make you choke in in your non-fat late.

The only thing I despise as much as religious fascists are PC-fascists that want everybody safe in a little cocoon of non-violence at the cost of the people's individual freedoms.

 

[Andreus]

Buddy, I live in South Africa, our rates of murder and rape would make you choke in in your non-fat late.

The only thing I despise as much as religious fascists are PC-fascists that want everybody safe in a little cocoon of non-violence at the cost of people individual freedoms.

oh please... I spent 9 months in Iraq and syria and took a couple of bullets while i was there. I am QUITE familliar with the use of firearms. so save that on someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I am a crack shot.

What bothers me about the anti gun sanity crowd is that they are usually the least responsible in handling weapons. If you think being a man is weilding a weapon then you are sadly mistaken.

Stevenavy will back me up on this, I'm sure, when i say that a man who has no respect for a weapon is doomed to mishandle it. acting like you NEED a gun to defend yourself is NOT responsible.

and BTW... if you are south afrikan, then what the hell do YOU have any concern with the second ammendment of america for?

Guns are not the measure of a man, his ethics and compassion are.

 

[JackFTwist]

If you notice, the second part of the amendment states that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.

Why do American liberals like to so much to piss on the Second Amendment but want to enshrine all the others in a fucking cathedral.

"How could that hack Jefferson have dared to write in an amendment that makes me feel uncomfortable!?"

Separation of church and state makes some fundamentalists feel uncomfortable, but would you allow them to remove the barrier between religion and government?

If you take away a person's means to defend themselves, you take away their right to defend themselves.

If you want to be a pussy and cower in closet while you call the police when somebody breaks into your house, good for you, but give those who are man enough to take care of the problem themselves, the option to do so.

I find your reply to be stunning in its use of insult and false accusations wrapped in anger. As for your insult regarding pissing on any portion of the Consitution, that is libel, sir, and you owe me an apology, because my life has been of supportng the Constitution, which I have taken vows to uphold and defend. My son, an Active Duty Marine, is out there supporting the Constitution. I ask kindly that you withdraw your statement about pissinbg on the Constitution.

Your stereotyping of liberals is as well most fanciful. Let us stick to the issue, and facts.

James Madison composed the first draft of the Second Amendment, not Jefferson. It went through several tweakings as it went back and forth between House and Senate. Its legislative history was that of a discussion regarding the equipping of militias (in a nation with a miniscule budget and barely tolerable of a most small standing army).

One of the versions before the final version is as follows: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. The intent hear is clearer that what is being discussed is the militia and its staffing and provisioning.

The final and adopted version is clear enough that ut refers to the militia.

Constitutional law has supported that view. One example of many is United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed–off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.” The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Therefore, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well– regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” The citation for Miller is 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

I am sure that now you regret your unwarranted attack on my manhood (and personhood) and accusations of cowardice. That was rude, based on nothing but a desire to insult anyone who differs from your opinion. As I said, I am sure that you regret it and will apologise.

It seems like a good day to remember my cousin Mickey who died on duty in LA, protecting the community and shot with a stolen gun. http://www.camemorial.org/htmprev/lavieri.htm

My family, all of us, like the colors on the US flag, do not run.

 

[Erik770]

Actually plenty of 16 year olds took up the most modern arms of the day against a constabulary force, and I'm not just talking about Continental Regulars either.

Guns are inanimate objects. If one group of humans wants to hurt another group of humans they will find a way. Why haven't terrorist (from your OKC to your 9/11 types) used firearms against civilian or soft military targets? Because there are far more efficient and spectacular ways to kill people.

There is no need to get nasty and take cheap shots at each other.

Regardless if you like it or not firearms are a part of American culture. The U.S. Founding Fathers knew just what they were doing. I'm sure most are rolling in their grave by the legislative circumvention 175 years of lawmaking has done to the Nation that they set forth.

I'm proud that my forefathers took arms up against their ruler to ensure that the next generation born in America would be citizens and not subjects.

 

[Negasta]

If you're talking about SA, then what the fuck are you rambling on about the 2nd Amendment and the USA for then?

In S.A. we hove no constitutional assurance of the right to bear arms and the rights of legal owners of guns are slowly being eroded in my homeland, I feel it is of my concern wherever the rights of people to bear arms are being threatened.

I also hope to one day make the USA my home and become a citizen.

The USA on the other hand is a piece of piss compared to SA.

I couldn't agree more.

What bothers me about the anti gun sanity crowd is that they are usually the least responsible in handling weapons. If you think being a man is weilding a weapon then you are sadly mistaken.

I agree that many people who own guns are not in the least competent to own them, the one thing about the new gun legislation enacted in S.A. I support is psychological testing of applicants for firearms licenses and mandatory training before issuing of said license.

Your stereotyping of liberals is as well most fanciful. Let us stick to the issue, and facts.

JackFTwist, I apologise if I offended you, but I am only stating an opinion that has been formed by observation of many gun related threads on many liberal boards.

I was not intending to insult you directly.

 

[Andreus]

I also hope to one day make the USA my home and become a citizen.

as an american I don't share your hope

we already have enough violent people here as it is. If you want to come to this nation so that you can participate in the culture of violence, you will quickly be shown the door. Indeed, just these posts are enough to deprive you of a visa.

america is lot more than an action flick with guns and blood. maybe if you realize this you will change your mind and not come.

 

[Andreus]

You are more than able to defend your home and person using a Glock or Browning etc.

There;s a difference between having the "right to bear arms" and being able to pop down your local grocery store to pick up an Uzi 9mm with your Milk.

exactly Joe and just what the founders of america envisioned.

 

[Negasta]

as an american I don't share your hope

we already have enough violent people here as it is. If you want to come to this nation so that you can participate in the culture of violence, you will quickly be shown the door. Indeed, just these posts are enough to deprive you of a visa.

america is lot more than an action flick with guns and blood. maybe if you realize this you will change your mind and not come.

I take great pains to avoid violence of any sort, I will not harm anyone unless they threaten me or my family first.

I want to live in America because there are opportunities there that are non-existent in S.A. I want to live in America because it has the best constitution in the world and is as diverse a nation as any you can hope to find. If I thought America was "an action flick with guns and blood", I would have no desire to live there.

I also agree with Joe that it is stupid for the public (considering some of the morons out there) to own weapons such as assault rifles, GPMG's or rocket launchers.

The idea that you should be able to acquire any sort of firearm as easily as you would milk at the corner store is ridiculous.

 

[ComNavFdgPk]

While I have no idea of the murder rate in South Africa, I do know that more than 15,000 people are killed each year in the United States. Now, admittedly, very few of those murders are committed with a 50 cal. machine gun. But that doesn't mean that any fucking idiot off the street should have the right to own one. I personally own two handguns, and support reasonable gun control. People should be able to own a weapon; but they shouldn't be able to have an Abrams A1 parked in the back yard with a full compliment of ordinance.

 

[Negasta]

While I have no idea of the murder rate in South Africa, I do know that more than 15,000 people are killed each year in the United States. Now, admittedly, very few of those murders are committed with a 50 cal. machine gun. But that doesn't mean that any fucking idiot off the street should have the right to own one. I personally own two handguns, and support reasonable gun control. People should be able to own a weapon; but they shouldn't be able to have an Abrams A1 parked in the back yard with a full compliment of ordinance.

According to the Centre for Security Studies, South Africa had a murder rate of 40 per 100 000 people in 2005, which comes to about 19 000 murders a year in a country of about 47.5 million people (compared to 5.6 per 100 000 in the U.S.).

An interesting observation is that the number of murders committed with firearms has been increasing, mostly since new laws were introduced that make it almost impossible to acquire a gun legally.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I was always taught during my military training that if you draw up on someone.. you've got to be TOTALLY committed it to using it.

One shot.. one kill.

None of this wielding a weapon around in the hope its a deterrant.. if you are prepared to throw it around and draw against someone... use it.

As drew has quite rightly said.. having a weapon and being able to wave it around, doesnt make you a bigger or better man than the next guy.. in fact, ive got more respect for the man who can settle his disputes initially via verbal reasoning, and if violence IS needed... but use of his own hands.

My Grandpa taught me how to shoot a 9mm pistol. The United States Coast Guard taught me how to fire a .45 automatic and an M16. I own a 20 gauge shotgun for killing Copperheads and Diamond Back Rattle snakes on my farm.

My Grandpa insisted that I recite a mantra whenever handling a firearm:

Never point a gun at a man unless you plan on shooting him.​

Never shoot a man unless you plan on killing him.​

As to the topic of this thread, and as a registered and active Demopussy, I firmly support the United States Constitution:

Amendment II: Right to bear arms
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.
source: http://www.constitutionfacts.com/constitution/Bill_of_rights.htm

Where I'm personally conflicted, is where public safety/protection enters into the mix.

If the idea is to defend oneself against tyranny or invasion at the end of a gun, then why not take it to it's extreme logical conclusion; the Right to Bear nuclear arms. If my Government or any foreign government has an arsenal greater than my own, how can I properly defend myself?

How about armor and kevlar piercing bullets? How can law enforcement possibly be expected to keep the peace when they are out gunned by the populace?

How can anyone justify the need for RPG's for sport hunting?

Part of what helps me to get a grip on these questions is the fact that most of the hoopla is just that; hoopla.

The National Rifle Association seeks only it's own existence, rather than to protect the Second Amendment. That or they take the arguments to such an extreme that they're not based anywhere in reality, or on very small percentages that hardly reflects the reality on the street; Guns in Schools, Illegal possession from either minors or convicted felons. To hear the NRA's defense even convicted felons who've committed crimes with a loaded weapons shouldn't be denied the "right to bear arms." Bet you'll never hear that in any of their "promotional fundraising" materials.

The rest of it are really tactics of WAR.

If someone is fearful of cutting someone off in traffic, or burglarizing another person's home because they might get their asses shot, if that makes this country a little saner, and perhaps less violent, so be it.

What are the doing in the U.K. right now? Making it illegal to carry knives? Forget about a gun!

But when it comes to day to day protection of the citizenry, I honestly don't feel comfortable with the idea that potential criminals can out gun local law enforcement.

A line must be drawn somewhere.

Is my right to bear arms being infringed upon by my Government by making it unlawful for me to be in posession of the instructions/materials to build a nuclear bomb? Nuclear weapons are "armaments" aren't they?

So how far down the arms "food chain" do we go without "infringing" upon my right to bear an arm?


</IMG></IMG>

 

[Andreus]

NNS.... neighborhood nuclear superiority

its all the rage

sorry... just an old joke i couldn't resist

 

[Centexfarmer]

NNS.... neighborhood nuclear superiority

its all the rage

sorry... just an old joke i couldn't resist

When I lived in Northern Cali-fornia you would see cars with bumper stickers that read: Gay Power, No Nukes, Pro-Life, Save the Seals.

Then one day, while crossing the Golden Gate Bridge I saw a bumper sticker that made me really take notice. It read: Nuke the Gay Baby Seals.



I'm sorry, back to topic.