- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
- Messages
- 12,099
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The point of the entire Bill Of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was to draw a line that the government was not supposed to cross, ever. For the government to cross that line would mean that the government is being oppressive and exceeding its authority. That is why the 2nd Amendment or any of the Amendments in the Bill Of Rights cannot be repealed or amended.The Second A. was written back in the 18th century when we had state militias, not a national army or state police forces. Every member of the militia had a musket ready to go if called on. With our current national army & state & local police forces, the 2nd A. is obsolete & should either be repealed or amended as there is no need now for anyone to have a gun ready to go.
In 18th century legal speak, the intent of the amendment was expressed in the preamble: 'A well regulated militia being necessary...' We don't have militias any more. The 2nd A is now just an excuse for the gun lobby to make & sell guns.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...sement-after-gop-candidate-opposed-3d-printed
A gun-rights group in Connecticut has pulled its endorsement for a Republican candidate after she spoke out against 3D-printed guns.
Susan Hatfield (R) was previously endorsed by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) in her primary race for attorney general, Fox 61 News reported Sunday.
The CCDL, however, withdrew its endorsement on Thursday after Hatfield condemned 3D-printed firearms.
==============================================
I think a lot of these gun-rights people should get mental stability checkups.
The Second A. was written back in the 18th century when we had state militias, not a national army or state police forces. Every member of the militia had a musket ready to go if called on. With our current national army & state & local police forces, the 2nd A. is obsolete & should either be repealed or amended as there is no need now for anyone to have a gun ready to go.
In 18th century legal speak, the intent of the amendment was expressed in the preamble: 'A well regulated militia being necessary...' We don't have militias any more. The 2nd A is now just an excuse for the gun lobby to make & sell guns.
The point of the entire Bill Of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was to draw a line that the government was not supposed to cross, ever. For the government to cross that line would mean that the government is being oppressive and exceeding its authority. That is why the 2nd Amendment or any of the Amendments in the Bill Of Rights cannot be repealed or amended.
In the strict context of the gun owner belonging to a well-regulated (state) militia. Those don't exist any longer.
The Bill of Rights is the nickname for the first 10 amendments. There is no reason they cannot be changed by the amendment process, In whole or in part.
Find a recent red/blue map of the US. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.
The point of the entire Bill Of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was to draw a line that the government was not supposed to cross, ever. For the government to cross that line would mean that the government is being oppressive and exceeding its authority. That is why the 2nd Amendment or any of the Amendments in the Bill Of Rights cannot be repealed or amended.
Nothing in the second says make and sell. It says keep and bear.
many gun banners think anyone who owns guns are insane. Many who own guns think the same way of adults who are afraid of firearms
The Bill of Rights is the nickname for the first 10 amendments. There is no reason they cannot be changed by the amendment process, In whole or in part.
Other than will of the people, who do not and will not support the repeal of any part of the Bill of Rights.
Difficult? Yes. Deliberately so. Impossible? Not at all.
That is nonsense. Of course they can. The entire BOR could be ripped up
No its not reasonable to be afraid of firearms, its just reasonable to respect them.It's reasonable to be afraid of firearms
So you must be afraid of police officers.it's reasonable to be afraid of men with firearms.
In the name of peace? Being deprived of live and liberty is not peaceful.What's insane is sending violent men into the homes of nonviolent men, to deprive them of life and liberty, in the name of peace.
And that would result in civil war.
In the name of peace? Being deprived of live and liberty is not peaceful.
Are we being invaded? No? Then our security is just fine.
The Second A. was written back in the 18th century when we had state militias, not a national army or state police forces. Every member of the militia had a musket ready to go if called on. With our current national army & state & local police forces, the 2nd A. is obsolete & should either be repealed or amended as there is no need now for anyone to have a gun ready to go.
In 18th century legal speak, the intent of the amendment was expressed in the preamble: 'A well regulated militia being necessary...' We don't have militias any more. The 2nd A is now just an excuse for the gun lobby to make & sell guns.
Nothing in the second says make and sell. It says keep and bear.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...sement-after-gop-candidate-opposed-3d-printed
A gun-rights group in Connecticut has pulled its endorsement for a Republican candidate after she spoke out against 3D-printed guns.
Susan Hatfield (R) was previously endorsed by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) in her primary race for attorney general, Fox 61 News reported Sunday.
The CCDL, however, withdrew its endorsement on Thursday after Hatfield condemned 3D-printed firearms.
==============================================
I think a lot of these gun-rights people should get mental stability checkups.
Ah, the old Commerce Clause argument. It was the basis of both the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968...and the very reason why private citizens can still make firearms for their personal use and/or buy/sell commercial firearms in their own states...because the Federal government does not have the power to regulate intra-state commerce.
If you want to ban the manufacture and sales of firearms, go for it...as long as that ban applies to government as well. This notion that the citizens should pay for its EMPLOYEES to own and use items that they are prevented from using is pure horsepucky. What is good for the government is good for the citizen. Indeed, history has proven that government is more likely to abuse arms than citizens are...and at a much higher cost in blood and treasure. If any entity needs to be strictly regulated when it comes to arms, it is government.
I was addressing a single non true statement. I stand foursquare feet planted firmly as a second amendment advocate.
and I am thankful for that! I'm new to these parts, so please excuse my tendency to use some posts as "teachable" moments...especially when it comes to firearms.
You can always tell a Marine, but you just can't tell'em much
Welcome.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?