To get your blood boiling

[Five Seasons]

I have quite a few liberal friends who aren't big fans of guns. Many of the grew up on L.I for whatever that's worth. Want changes made to our laws but generally aren't calling for a ban. Say guys like me are fear mongering and nobody is coming for our guns. And then of course major media outlets (however biased) publish stuff like this.

enjoy

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

[chas0218]

Yeah saw this, I can't believe it.

“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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

That is the scary part. When government says "you don't need a gun" you need a gun or many.

[philoshop]

" A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." Does this mean that only "well-schooled" people have the right to books?

https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/your-second-amendment

[The_Field_Ager]

Folks need to look at what is happening in South Africa. They want it happening here to within the next couple of generations. The guns have to taken here as they were there. And now genocide has begun.

Canada is in trouble too:

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Papist

[greg54]

[chas0218]

I will say that in order for them to repeal the 2nd amendment all but 12 states would be needed and I don't see that happening anytime soon.  

[The_Field_Ager]

35 minutes ago, chas0218 said:

 I don't see that happening anytime soon.  

Really, have you not seen the craven class of corrupt human who deign to call themselves our leaders? The self same people who collude with one another and the deep state to over-throw the people's choice of President? Have you not seen the circuit courts, time and again subvert the wishes of the people, putting their very lives in danger by giving 'sanctuary' to foreign criminal gang members, now murdering people on the streets of Las Vegas?

I promise you, within our life times you will gun restrictions tightened and reduced and diminished until one day there may as well be no 2A.

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Papist

[ADK Native]

Good point greg54.

The majority of "their" generation is unqualified for military service.  What are these "revolutionaries" going to fight with, a video game while they pop Tide Pods down their gullet?

I love listening to Gunnery Sergeant Hartman.  Makes me reflect on more realistic days!  Here is a link the Tide Pod revolutionaries can go to to get some psychiatric help:  https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/full_metal_jacket/quotes/

 

[wildcat junkie]

20 hours ago, chas0218 said:

 

“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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

 

How does the U S Constitution define a "well regulated militia"?

[Five Seasons]

52 minutes ago, wildcat junkie said:

How does the U S Constitution define a "well regulated militia"?

the scary part is that the author is a retired justice and constitutional lawyer. He's also 97 for what it's worth. So basically the elderly and the youth want our guns lol.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Belo

[Rattler]

1 hour ago, wildcat junkie said:

How does the U S Constitution define a "well regulated militia"?

The Constitution doesn't define the term, it uses it.  At the time the Constitution was written, "well regulated" meant "acting like a precision watch movement".  The whole of the people were the "militia".  Well armed, trained, prepared and a force to be reckoned with.

It didn't mean ruled by big government regulation and oppression, as the left believes it means.

BTW, the people of the time possessed the same level of weaponry they expected their enemies would bring to bear against them.  Today, even with AR's and AK's, the citizens do even possess half the level of weaponry that could be used against them.  That's unconstitutional.

[steve863]

36 minutes ago, Belo said:

the scary part is that the author is a retired justice and constitutional lawyer. He's also 97 for what it's worth. So basically the elderly and the youth want our guns lol.

Well, they do say that when you get old you become childlike again.  LOL   Rattler, Philo, Papist, just wait!  LOL

 

 

[chas0218]

1 hour ago, wildcat junkie said:

How does the U S Constitution define a "well regulated militia"?

Well if the 2nd amendment is considered a relic then the constitution is as well and no one needs the 1st amendment anymore than the 2nd and so on. So why not just start all over right? I mean according to everyone against the 2nd amendment and wanting more gun laws it was written too long ago so I guess everyone needs to surrender their right of free speech, freedom of the press, no need for a judicial system, I could keep going but I'm sure you all are getting the picture.

[Rattler]

“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.”

When one understands proper English, it becomes obvious the the words "shall not be infringed", refer to possession of arms.  The founders were not concerned with anyone who possessed arms, they were only concerned about criminal activity.  They wrote laws to punish criminals, people who abused their freedom to hurt others or trample on the rights of others.  They understood prosecution of criminal activity was needed to protect freedom.

The entire Constitution was written to prevent the Federal government from having the ability to evolve into an entity employing organized crime.  It was granted little power over much of anything by the founders, so it could never be a tool for tyrants.

The founders warned future generations that freedom needed to be understood, earned and guarded on a daily basis, as there would always be insidious encroachment by men of zeal, who possess no understanding of the consequences.  The America people have been allowing their freedoms to slip away for decades now, lulled into a sense of false security by the siren of big government.  Recently, the taking of rights has become intentional though.  Many in government seek to retain power in spite of the Constitution's prohibition of their conduct.  Time is always on the side of traitors.  They never lose sight of their goals.  Free people, on the other hand, are often in denial, when it comes to their rights and freedoms being attacked.

Unless Americans start learning the purpose of the Constitution and what their rights are, they will soon be saying they live in a free country, where you are free to do whatever the government let's you do.

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Rattler

[philoshop]

2 hours ago, wildcat junkie said:

How does the U S Constitution define a "well regulated militia"?

The U.S. Constitution does not provide a definition for "well regulated militia". The U.S.constitution sets forth what  "unalienable" rights may not be taken away, the right to be armed for self-preservation is 2nd on the list.

[Rattler]

The principle of the debate is simple; namely, the right to self-defense is a God-given right that predates government itself. The Declaration of Independence proclaims we are each endowed by our Creator with certain "unalienable rights" and that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." Get that? Rights are secured, NOT granted, by government.

In his Commentaries on the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the "Father of American Jurisprudence," made it clear and unambiguous, declaring, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Disarming law-abiding citizens will not protect innocent people; it will only leave them defenseless against those with homicidal intentions — not to mention at the mercy of tyrannical government. It is beyond foolish to think otherwise.

[wildcat junkie]

4 hours ago, philoshop said:

The U.S. Constitution does not provide a definition for "well regulated militia". The U.S.constitution sets forth what  "unalienable" rights may not be taken away, the right to be armed for self-preservation is 2nd on the list.

You should try reading it then.

 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[Culvercreek hunt club]

13 minutes ago, wildcat junkie said:

You should try reading it then.

 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

it doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.  Remember the first 10 articles are restrictions on the government. They are not an outline of freedoms. In that context it is clear the meaning especially if the founding fathers' of written of the period is understood.  The militia was the people. All the people. 

[Rattler]

3 hours ago, wildcat junkie said:

You should try reading it then.

 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

How does this article define the "Militia"?  The Constitution is well understood to give power to the government only where needed and it bars the government from any powers not specified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Of course the founders would give the power to organize the people in defense of the country if ever needed.  You need to read the line that states, "employed in the Service of the United States".  The people were called upon by the government when needed to defend the country, but they were still free men, autonomous and without conscription.  They could refuse to fight without penalty.

They were also free to organize against their own government if it ever turned on their freedom.  If today's events were happening soon after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, the people would've been shooting by now.

 

[philoshop]

6 hours ago, wildcat junkie said:

You should try reading it then.

 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That is not a definition. It is a description of what is required should a standing army of citizens be required for national defense. That actually may happen again some day.

The Second Amendment is about the right of the citizen to be prepared to defend themselves (as individuals) and their nation (as a group) should the need arise.

All arguments against the Second Amendment start with one premise: The individual is not a sovereign entity but is merely part of a collective, and therefore subject to the collective will. That's pure BS.

[Five Seasons]

have had quite a few debates on the old social media with my anti-gun friends lately. I thought it was pretty well understood and agreed upon what the second amendment meant. You have every right to believe it needs to be repealed, but debating what it actually means has been long since put to bed. But I've seen this pop up a few times now and it just furthers my belief that people will go to the Nth degree to try and get their way. After all the arguments including facts and case studies, Scotland, Australia, suicides blah blah blah eventually someone pulls out the "that's not what the second amendment means" card and I'm just like... well. I'm done here. lol.

[dbHunterNY]

i just get a chuckle out of the person that argues the whole time with the anti-gun mindset and then passively says "nobody's trying to take away your gun."

[Rattler]

You have to notice they never say "nobody wants to take away your right to own a gun".  Truth be told, they want it to be a privilege granted by, and restricted by, the big government they long for. 

In their minds, if they impose all sorts of oppressive restrictions and you no longer meet the criteria to own firearms, they didn't take your guns away, you lost the privilege to have them.  Therefore you're the bad guy and they're the good guys.  That's leftist ideology being justified with convoluted thinking.

[philoshop]

If you're deemed worthy of being among the privileged class you can surround yourself with all the guns and gunmen you can afford. Those deemed less privileged may be allowed to use sticks and stones. It's a medieval system being renewed in America today, right under our noses.

[wildcat junkie]

What did the late "conservative" SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia have to say about 2nd Amendment rights?