New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 2nd Amendment
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

2nd Amendment

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2008 at 14:36
David View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist
Avatar

Joined: February/06/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 283
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

As John Steinbeck once said: 

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man.  If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45?" The Ranger responded, "Because they don't make a .46."

6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm.  "Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?" "No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle."

8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!

But wait, there's more!

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said "Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!" To which I said,  of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!" She then asked, "Are you that afraid of some one evil coming into your house?" My reply was, "No not at all.  I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too."  To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2008 at 16:23
lucytuma View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: November/25/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 5389
Good stuff, I like the fire/fire extinguisher bit.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2008 at 17:08
BeltFed View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: February/12/2008
Location: Ky
Status: Offline
Points: 16067
If the 2nd Amendment is about States right to have militias, then why does it say; the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Instead of the right of the state to keep and bare arms...
If the people have the right to keep and bare arms, but the government has the right to restrict what arms you can keep; how can you call that a right and not a privaledge. After all a rock can be called a arm and the government could say that is all the arms you need.
For just some of the Founding Fathers thoughts on the 2nd Amendment go to kysrpa.org.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2008 at 19:17
fmullegun View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/09/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Turns out not even the most liberal of the Supreme court think that the 2nd is about militias and only militias.
 
I always knew you had to be an idiot to think that. 
 
The beauty part is since the militia statement is in there it makes it awful difficult for them to keep machine guns so strictly regulated.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2008 at 21:31
martin3175 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3773
well said
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2008 at 07:28
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
The key here is "well regulated Militia" Then "The rights of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms will not be infringed." The well regulated pertains to the MILITIA and that means well trained and equiped, the seperate issue is the rights of the people. and it says "will not be infringed." The direct translation here means that bans on arms are unconstitutional, as it was the intent of the framers to insure that the governed are well capable of defending themselves against a governance out of control, which will use the militias. This makes it imperative that the individual must be allowed to keep and bear the means with which to defend individual interests.
Ted Nugent is exactly right that the debate on this only illustrates that there is a cause for concern in that the Bill of Rights is open for such debate and hence interpretation. IT IS NOT!!!!! IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. The only action that should have taken place is that the Supreme Court should have held that the gun ban is unconstitutional and that said gun ban will be lifted. There is nothing to debate. THERE IS NOTHING TO DEBATE!!!!!!!!!


Edited by cyborg - March/21/2008 at 07:29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2008 at 09:29
fmullegun View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/09/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

The only action that should have taken place is that the Supreme Court should have held that the gun ban is unconstitutional and that said gun ban will be lifted. There is nothing to debate. THERE IS NOTHING TO DEBATE!!!!!!!!!
 
If that happened it would feel a little more like China with lack of "due process" and actual debate.  The ban will be stricken down and it will be done so legally and fairly.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2008 at 15:52
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14312

It's simple English, and the anti gun zealots are the ones who have twisted the "well-regulated militia" clause to somehow hoodwink people into believing the disingenuous argument that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant an individual right.

The first clause "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" is merely explaining why the right was granted to individuals to begin with, not a limitation on the individual right.  It is setting up the purpose for the declarative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to exist.  A similarly constructed sentence might be "An honest, trustworthy friend being necessary for managing my personal financial affairs, the right for Bill to have free, unconditional access to my checking and savings accounts shall not be infringed."  Say I drafted a signed contract containing that language and had it notarized.  Then say Bill proved that he wasn't such an honest, trustworthy friend after all.  It doesn't change the fact that I just gave him the unconditional right to free access to my accounts.


Edited by RifleDude - March/21/2008 at 15:55
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2008 at 16:00
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
I agree-- there is no issue.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2008 at 21:19
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
I always read the second amendment as a NOTIFICATION to the brand new fledging government that they could not infringe upon our pre-existing right to bear arms----(we ALREADY HAD 'EM----that's how we got rid of King George's yoke about our neck....). It is not, and never WAS, a "right" that the government GRANTED us!!! It doesn't read that way. "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"----THAT sounds like PRE-EXISTING to ME!!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/22/2008 at 01:18
yellowdog View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: January/22/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

The key here is "well regulated Militia" Then "The rights of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms will not be infringed." The well regulated pertains to the MILITIA and that means well trained and equiped, the seperate issue is the rights of the people. and it says "will not be infringed." The direct translation here means that bans on arms are unconstitutional, as it was the intent of the framers to insure that the governed are well capable of defending themselves against a governance out of control, which will use the militias. This makes it imperative that the individual must be allowed to keep and bear the means with which to defend individual interests.
Ted Nugent is exactly right that the debate on this only illustrates that there is a cause for concern in that the Bill of Rights is open for such debate and hence interpretation. IT IS NOT!!!!! IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. The only action that should have taken place is that the Supreme Court should have held that the gun ban is unconstitutional and that said gun ban will be lifted. There is nothing to debate. THERE IS NOTHING TO DEBATE!!!!!!!!!
         Nuff said, end of story.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/22/2008 at 08:15
medic52 View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 893

EXCELLENT COMMENTS GENTLEMEN..........

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/22/2008 at 12:04
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Yep, I believe that the document says what it says......It ain't open to RE-INTERPRETATION ( which the liberals call " a Living document" so they can mess with it.....)  
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/23/2008 at 13:52
longboard View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: October/31/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "2nd Amendment"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Ted Nugent on 2nd Amendment RifleDude Firearms 9
Long range 101 + amendments Rancid Coolaid Target 35
BARSKA 3-9x42 IR 2nd Generation Sniper Riflescope mustang35103 Tactical Scopes 1
2nd round of drop confirmations to 1350 yards 7LRM Ernie Bishop The Range Report 4
1st Focal Plane versus 2nd Focal Plane tpcollins Tactical Scopes 34
Applied Ballistics book 2nd Ed F/S Bigdaddy0381 Hunting and Shooting Gear For Sale 0
2nd and final hunt 2012 8shots General Hunting 5
1st plane vs. 2nd plane reticles McKinneyMike Rifle Scopes 5
1st or 2nd plane jägermeister Rifle Scopes 2
Zeiss 1st or 2nd Focal Plain noddah Rifle Scopes 2 11/23/2006 8:07:27 AM


This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.