Ron 10
QuoteI'm glad we agree to a certain extent on this, however, it should be noted that nowhere does the 2nd mention "guns" either! It mentions arms. I'll admit that guns are a sub-set of arms, but militias existed well before guns did
I think the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendmant with the revolution in mind. They knew that an armed populace would be able to ensure that the government didn't go overboard. As I am sure you know that teh founding fathers were unhappy with Mother England and needed "the people" to rise up and arm themselves against it.
My take on the 2nd is that the founding fathers wanted to ensure that we would always have the tools needed to rise up against an oppressive government.
This means that I think that "the people" should be allowed weapons that a small unit would use. Afganistan and our Revolution showed that an armed populace can make changes.
I also feel that to posses a weapon there should not be a record that would allow confiscation.
I feel that a screening is needed to prevent criminals and people with mental problems.
If a person wishes to "carry" then they should have to pass tests and back ground checks.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
quade 4
Yep, sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The only issue is that I think there -should- be record kept on guns so that they are tracable for the purposes of law enforcement. I know this opens up a whole can of worms for some folks, but I'm sorry that's just the way I feel.
Also, Ron, when you say, "This means that I think that "the people" should be allowed weapons that a small unit would use." I can't really agree with you about -everything- that would entail; hand grednades for instance and I'm sure there's a couple of other things we could talk about, but again, for the same reasons of law enforcement.
The only issue is that I think there -should- be record kept on guns so that they are tracable for the purposes of law enforcement. I know this opens up a whole can of worms for some folks, but I'm sorry that's just the way I feel.
Also, Ron, when you say, "This means that I think that "the people" should be allowed weapons that a small unit would use." I can't really agree with you about -everything- that would entail; hand grednades for instance and I'm sure there's a couple of other things we could talk about, but again, for the same reasons of law enforcement.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Ron 10
QuoteThe only issue is that I think there -should- be record kept on guns so that they are tracable for the purposes of law enforcement. I know this opens up a whole can of worms for some folks, but I'm sorry that's just the way I feel
My only problem with that is registration has been shown time after time to be the first step in confiscation.
Also, if they came to take your guns, and knew what you had....Then the revolution would have to start right then....Or it would be lost. Once you give up your right to keep a gun, you will never get it back, and then it would be almost impossible to make a stand against a corrupt government.
QuoteAlso, Ron, when you say, "This means that I think that "the people" should be allowed weapons that a small unit would use." I can't really agree with you about -everything- that would entail; hand grednades for instance and I'm sure there's a couple of other things we could talk about, but again, for the same reasons of law enforcement
I actually agree. I would not have a problem with someone having them if they passed background checks and security requirements....However, I agree that these should not be available to just anyone.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
If a person wishes to "carry" then they should have to pass tests and back ground checks.
__________________________________________________
So says "Ron".
The Constitution says otherwise. The founding Fathers said,"shall not be infringed".
"Tests and backround checks"? Conducted by whom?
Tests and checks to be conducted by the very same government that the Founding Fathers knew We should be armed against?
Really short and simple..,
no Man needs government approval to carry firearms.
It is a Right.
Rights aren't granted by government and no government has any legitimate power to deny any Man his Rights.
Blues,
Cliff
[
I can kinda see where your argument is coming from, but do you actually have a point, or are you just bored?
I can kinda see where your argument is coming from, but do you actually have a point, or are you just bored?
__________________________________________________
The main point is made in the thread title.
When government acts to suppress the Rights of the People,the People have only two avenues to address this very grave transgression.
One is through the courts.
Unfortunately today every court in the land ,the very same courts which are the last hope of We the People to peacefully secure our Rights and address the government as to our grievences,themselves seek to deny us our Natural Rights.
Anytime any of us attempt to enter a courtroom, in the "Land of the Free", our 2nd and 4th ammendment Rights are violated by the government. As a matter of fact, they have posted armed agents of the state at every entrance to these "halls of justice" to disarm the poulation by force.
Some will say , "That's how I like my courts..,Safe".
Those folks are fools.
A sheep in a pen is "safe" until slaughter season.
If the courts deny us our Rights , those courts are illegitimate and there is no longer any avenue to attempt to peacefully secure our Rights or to address the government as to our grievences.
This is the state of America today.
The question is ;
Knowing that the government has superior firepower and forces..,
Are you brave enough to be Free?
Blues,
Cliff
Also, Ron, when you say, "This means that I think that "the people" should be allowed weapons that a small unit would use." I can't really agree with you about -everything- that would entail; hand grednades for instance
__________________________________________________
Yes, handgrenades,tear gas, tanks like those the government used against the innocent at the Branch Davidion temple.
Ground to air missles, mines, etc.
The people have the Right to the same arms the government has to ensure the government is always the "servant " and the People the master.
Oh, and before you get on the "innocent Branch Davidion" comment, show me where they were proven guilty before their execution.
Blues,
Cliff
__________________________________________________
Yes, handgrenades,tear gas, tanks like those the government used against the innocent at the Branch Davidion temple.
Ground to air missles, mines, etc.
The people have the Right to the same arms the government has to ensure the government is always the "servant " and the People the master.
Oh, and before you get on the "innocent Branch Davidion" comment, show me where they were proven guilty before their execution.
Blues,
Cliff
mr2mk1g 10
but does the drunk have the right to bear arms in a school?
Should the drunk have that right?
Should the drunk have that right?
AndyMan 7
QuoteThe Constitution says otherwise. The founding Fathers said,"shall not be infringed".
The Constitution says the public has a right to carry military arms.
Thus, the constitution says the public has the right to carry tactical nuclear weapons.
The constitution says nothing about hunting weapons.
Interesting, isn't it?
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
Quotebut does the drunk have the right to bear arms in a school?
Should the drunk have that right?
__________________________________________________
To avoid having to answer the next question about a midget in a g-string on a tightrope during the superbowl halftime show,let me teach you how to fish so that you'll eat for more than a day .
Any Man has the Right to do whatever he pleases,so long as he is not violating the Rights of others.
That's what Freedom is all about.
Red ,White,and Blues,
Cliff
__________________________________________________
Even a drunk is protected by the 2nd ammendment and has the Right to bear arms.
Blues,
Cliff
I can kinda see where your argument is coming from, but do you actually have a point, or are you just bored?