Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
2nd Amendment |
Post Reply |
Author | |
David
Optics Optimist Joined: February/06/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 283 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: March/20/2008 at 14:36 |
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! |
|
lucytuma
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: November/25/2007 Location: Wisconsin Status: Offline Points: 5389 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Good stuff, I like the fire/fire extinguisher bit.
|
|
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
BeltFed
Optics Retard Joined: February/12/2008 Location: Ky Status: Offline Points: 22287 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
Life's concerns should be about the 120lb pack your trying to get to the top of the mountain, and not the rock in your boot.
|
|
fmullegun
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/09/2008 Status: Offline Points: 54 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
martin3175
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: January/19/2005 Location: Maryland Status: Offline Points: 3773 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
well said
|
|
cyborg
Optics God Gaseous Clay Joined: August/24/2007 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 12288 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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 |
|
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other
An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects. OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause. Cyborg |
|
fmullegun
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/09/2008 Status: Offline Points: 54 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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 |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I agree-- there is no issue.
|
|
Ed Connelly
Optics Retard God of no Chihuahua Joined: December/16/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 24225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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!!
|
|
yellowdog
Optics Journeyman Joined: January/22/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 432 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
If you don't want to stand behind our troops, then we will gladly have you stand in front of them.
|
|
medic52
Optics Professional Joined: October/05/2006 Location: Missouri Status: Offline Points: 893 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
EXCELLENT COMMENTS GENTLEMEN.......... |
|
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
Ed Connelly
Optics Retard God of no Chihuahua Joined: December/16/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 24225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.....)
|
|
longboard
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/31/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 17 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |