Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
You'd be the suckclown ranting and raving about how, to date, lib-retards haven't used an iota of "common sense" in their anti-gun legislation, suckclown.
The purpose and the wording are not that difficult to understand.
Had our founders intended to restrict gun ownership and the ability to bear those "arms" they would have said "militia" rather than "the people" as the ones that hold the right.
To understand the reasoning is not difficult at all unless your attempt is to make the amendment something that it is not, which is gun control.
The founding fathers knew how expensive it would be to maintain a standing army and how much of a burden it would be to the citizens to pay for it. This is one of the reasons that the Constitution only allows for funding for a standing army in two year periods. The idea is that in order to protect this new nation from threats the people should be armed so that we could defend ourselves while an army was being mustered.
One of the greatest fears and a primary reason for the founding of this nation was tyranny. The loss of the right to self determination was and still is a constant threat to our freedom.
In the most simplistic of terms, a militia is nothing more than an army of the people.
Wolverines
You are exactly right. The Second Amendment uses specific wording, such as People, the right to keep and bear, and the most important ones Shall Not Be Infringed. In simple terms in means I, have a right to keep a firearm to defend myself if warranted.
You are exactly right. The Second Amendment uses specific wording, such as People, the right to keep and bear, and the most important ones Shall Not Be Infringed. In simple terms in means I, have a right to keep a firearm to defend myself if warranted.
Jim
I agree, people have the right to defend themselves with firearms if necessary. But no right is limitless, we have freedom of speech but theres limits to that right. we have the right to bear arms, but we don't have the right as a citizen to go out and buy a nuclear weapon.
We also have the right to not be murdered while at church, or a nightclub. . we have the right to not have our children murdered by the dozen while at an elementary school. those are pretty important rights.
This gun debate is getting tiresome, as are most debates between absolutist groups who are unwilling and incapable of listening to each other and finding a workable solution.
First, I'm a Jeffersonian libertarian and I completely subscribe to the ultimate reason why a large subset of the populace must be armed -- not to hunt squirrels and not to guard their house from burglars. Rather, to check the power of the central government in case it becomes tyrannical.
Second, while it's the Statist Left that wants to pass more and more laws restricting gun access and use -- I think primarily because they think their "good intentions" will translate into votes at the polls, regardless of the efficacy of their misguided policies -- I frankly fear more the Statist Right who would make use of a disarmed populace to violate the civil liberties of their political foes. Both stupidity and tyranny are bad things, but stupidity can eventually be overcome. Civil wars are normally required to get rid of tyranny.
But I have to admit, if the biggest risk we face in this undeclared "war" against ISIS (or, what Obama would call lawlessness) is the "lone wolf" terrorist, then we have to stop and think about who really ought to own an AR-15 or similar semi-automatic weapons that can inflict so much rapid damage to large groups of victims.
So here is a possible middle ground:
(1) defined sporting and self-defense weapons (pistols, rifles and shotguns without semi-automatic features and with some reasonable maximum ammo load, say 8 or 10 shots) can only be restricted from persons with a violent felony conviction or an adjudicated mental health problem;
(2) defined tactical weapons (semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15 and other weaponry available to police forces, stopping short of fully automatic weapons and high payload explosive ordnance) can be restricted from, in addition to violent felons and the mentally ill, all non-citizens and any US citizen who is not a member of a State Militia;
(3) all States that wish to create "well-regulated militias" for the purpose of facilitating an appropriately armed and prepared populace may do so; and yes, these State Militias may require nothing more than a weekend of gun safety training or whatever the State wishes in order to establish membership qualifications;
(4) therefore, a State like, say Massachusetts, that wishes to have no State Militia may effectively disarm itself and put itself at the mercy of Federal power, whilst a State like, say Texas, can create a massive Militia and be better defended against the kind of tyranny that the Founders concerned themselves with.
I'm sure there is plenty in my proposal to piss off both the Gun Lobby and the wacko Left, but as a Jeffersonian libertarian I think it would satisfy my Second Amendment concerns.
The biggest obstruction for common sense gun laws is the NRA and gun lobby. . . they've been very effective at recruiting single issue voters. So the political climate has to build enough to overcome that. Wont be easy, but it needs to happen or more and more people will be murdered for no good reason.
It's not the NRA, it's our Constitution that's holds the 2nd Amendment intact. It's the very thing that keeps our country from being invaded by foreign aggression. They know, not only do we have a Military but almost every citizen is also armed. Secondly the second protects us from a tyrannical government which what we are beginning to get. Do you actually think they want to ban certain guns, reduce magazine capacity for your safety? Get real. Gun Control is for the Masonic Luciferian fucking assholes that run this country not us. They can give a fuck if you get shot. You better wake up stupid before it's too late.
The purpose and the wording are not that difficult to understand.
Had our founders intended to restrict gun ownership and the ability to bear those "arms" they would have said "militia" rather than "the people" as the ones that hold the right.
To understand the reasoning is not difficult at all unless your attempt is to make the amendment something that it is not, which is gun control.
The founding fathers knew how expensive it would be to maintain a standing army and how much of a burden it would be to the citizens to pay for it. This is one of the reasons that the Constitution only allows for funding for a standing army in two year periods. The idea is that in order to protect this new nation from threats the people should be armed so that we could defend ourselves while an army was being mustered.
One of the greatest fears and a primary reason for the founding of this nation was tyranny. The loss of the right to self determination was and still is a constant threat to our freedom.
In the most simplistic of terms, a militia is nothing more than an army of the people.
I agree, people have the right to defend themselves with firearms if necessary. But no right is limitless, we have freedom of speech but theres limits to that right. we have the right to bear arms, but we don't have the right as a citizen to go out and buy a nuclear weapon.
We also have the right to not be murdered while at church, or a nightclub. . we have the right to not have our children murdered by the dozen while at an elementary school. those are pretty important rights.
Nuclear Weapon? I think that's a no brainer, being that's not a firearm. Civilians can't buy Military fully automatic firearms either or RPG's (Rocket Propelled Grenades). So those are the limits and they have been implemented for decades. But with the banning of one type of firearm designed for the civilian population such as the AR-15 eventually that leads to other firearms being banned and it just keeps surmounting until the only thing a civilian can own to protect himself with other than himself is a pen knife.
That's why they redesigned it to be fully Automatic and called it the M-16. The AR-15 is the civilian copy of the M-16. No soldier in his right mind would go into a war zone with a semi Auto rifle when he can be issued one that is fully automatic.
This is one of suckclown's favorite dim-retard legislators in a moronically lib-retard attempt to apply the lib-retard version of *common sense* to regulating big bad guns featuring "the shoulder thing that goes up":
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to protect hunting, or self defense, it is to insure that the people have the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. If someone misuses his arms to commit a crime, punish them as harshly as possible, but leave the law abiding gun owner alone.
Lib-retards have been legislating gun control since at least the '30s, suckclown. Are you now claiming that lib-retards never applied any "common sense" in any of those laws, suckclown?
have to call you out on that one.
1930's? those people were not libs then, not in the truest sense of the word.
thats why we have so many innocent people getting murdered by assholes with guns.
most of the guns used in those crimes are illegal black market guns. get those things off the streets.
crimes used by legal guns are so rare -- less than 1%. the only exception to this is suicide, that is not so rare and is cause for concern.
//
we have 100 million guns in this country. why has this country not turned into 1980's Lebanon?
