323cheezy
Well-Known Member
there are bills that give us rights uknow....
all legislation isnt made to take away freedom..... some bills insure that are freedom is protected....
"The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation,"
- Thread starter fdd2blk
- Start date
all legislation isnt made to take away freedom..... some bills insure that are freedom is protected....
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
There is no legislation that gives us rights.there are bills that give us rights uknow....
all legislation isnt made to take away freedom..... some bills insure that are freedom is protected....
Rights are not given to any one. They are inherent by the fact that we are human beings. I do not need the government to tell me that I have the right to life, liberty or property.
But seemingly the government believes that it should be able to strip property owners of their right to decide if their is going to be smoking in their establishments.
The government feels it necessary to strip me of the rights protected under the 4th and 5th amendment by using force and fraud to make me fill out a tax return every year.
The so called rights that leftists advocate for, such as the absurd right to healthcare are not rights. They do not fit in the usual mold offered by the Constitution.
The rights enshrined in the constitution were not granted to the people, the government was merely prohibited from infringing on them.
I do not need the government to grant me freedom of speech, but it is routinely passing laws to restrict my freedom.
I do not need the government to grant me freedom of assembly, I am perfectly capable of choosing my friends, and gathering in public places with out them granting me that right. Which they actually didn't, because they are just restricted from doing so.
I do not need the government to grant me the freedom to bear arms, another right that the government is routinely and habitually infringing upon.
Your argument is flawed, and I doubt that you can actually name any rights that the government has granted you, because there are none.
Well, except perhaps the right to be fat, ignorant and lazy.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The guy from NH is not a bigot...try again.
what... huh?
Active Member
You know the guy from NH?
Why was he wearing an earpiece anyway? The one who started this. This really isn't about health care... is it?
Why was he wearing an earpiece anyway? The one who started this. This really isn't about health care... is it?
Funny how anyone with a gun is a nut, but if your gun is semi automatic (80% of them are) you are now a super dangerous nut. And forget if its a military style weapon, because the only thing they are used for is killing human beings. Of course lets not forget also that anyone who has a gun is also a racist.
FWIW I consider Barack Obama a white man with a built in tan.I own several guns, all are semi auto and a few are military assault rifles to boot. I don't even give a thought to people who open carry, its fucking commonplace especially when deer season hits.
FWIW I consider Barack Obama a white man with a built in tan.I own several guns, all are semi auto and a few are military assault rifles to boot. I don't even give a thought to people who open carry, its fucking commonplace especially when deer season hits.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Don't neglect the panic attack that occurs if the gun looks scary. Who can forget the "scary" looking gun ban?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yes. I heard he was staying in contact with other liberty activists he attended the event with. He is a nonviolent activist working to secure our liberties. He's a pretty smart guy too.
You may want to google FREE STATE PROJECT.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
They certainly grant me the right to donate more than half my income so that people like my dear departed uncle can live on the government teat for a few decades. Welfare, foodstamps, free medical care, so he can have the time to sit around and watch tv, ride his harley and badmouth the rich.
All this while living in a rent controlled home filled with several tv's, cell phones for everyone in the home, a sweet satellite package and two cars (albeit junkers). He used to sell his foodstamps and government cheese so he could buy beer. Yup, it sure was nice of our politicians (enablers) to make all that possible without ever having to take a job as long as I knew him.
iivan740
Well-Known Member
your right, I should have said "almost everyone", my bad. Wait I didn't say "gun" I said "weapon", so I think the statement was correct. A weapon is a means of contending aginst another. We as a society have become complacent and dependant.
Something you may want to consider is that the founding fathers did so, in part, because of a tax levied on imported tea. These taxes were ment to "bail out" the failing east indies company. Our founding fathers went to war and founded this nation in part because of a "bail out". Ironically our nation was formed as a revolt against a goverment "bail out".
In my short life I have had my freedoms limited by goverment. The patriot act allows for "sneak and peaks" which invade on my privacy. The brady bill infringed on my second amendment rights by limiting my choices in firearms (the second amendment didn't say "every man has the right to bear arms "to a point"", or did I miss read the thing?) The list goes on and on.
Thomas Jefferson "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." That was said 200 years ago and look what has happening.
Or this again from Thomas Jefferson "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
"We the people" have allowed this to happen to "our" nation. It's about time to put goverment where it belongs.
For me this has nothing to do with Oboma aside from the fact that he is; at present; the head of our goverment. I was kicking and screaming when Bush was in office, and Clintin wasn't any better. There have been a lot of "things" over the last few decades that have added to the negative sentiment. A few would be NAFTA, Un needed wars (Maybe not un wanted), wasteful goverment spending, Goverment bail out programs for the insurance, car, and banking industries, goverment stealing social security whenever it is expedient, and etc.... etc...
Any abridgment to my freedoms or liberties afforded to me under the original constitution is an infringment on my rights as a citizen of the USA.
shnkrmn
Well-Known Member
No, your first statement was a myth. Guns were expensive, specialized tools for RURAL living. We aren't talking stone axes or 'weapons' here, we are talking 'guns' lethal, powerful remote projectile weapons.
The second amendment by no means says every man has the right to bear arms but instead that "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." There's a huge difference.
The stamp tax on tea and other goods was NOT a bailout of the East India company but an attempt to get colonists to foot the bill for the enormous expense of the French-Indian War which helped us out enormously but which we, naturally, didn't want to pay for.
When you the people 'put government where it belongs' tell the rest of us, okay? I hate searching for things that are mislaid.
The second amendment by no means says every man has the right to bear arms but instead that "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." There's a huge difference.
The stamp tax on tea and other goods was NOT a bailout of the East India company but an attempt to get colonists to foot the bill for the enormous expense of the French-Indian War which helped us out enormously but which we, naturally, didn't want to pay for.
When you the people 'put government where it belongs' tell the rest of us, okay? I hate searching for things that are mislaid.
iivan740
Well-Known Member
You do realize that the The right to keep and bear arms or right to bear arms is the concept that people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons for individual use, or to bear arms in militia, or both.
The GUNS are modern symbols of our (yours and mine) rights.
Please research the "tea Act" of 1773. It passed Great Britians parliament on May 10th 1773. This is not my interpertation of history, it is what happened.
Please recite the first sentence of the constitution of the United States, here let me help get you started "We the people"....
The people (both you and I included) are the power of the goverment and have become complacent.
The militia is US you do understand that right? You, me, every citizen of the united states. A militia is not a goverment paid standing army. This is why the founding fathers made sure that "WE" have the "right to "bear arms".
And finally the goverment "belongs" to US, the citizens of the united states not lobbiest and big business. I probably could have phrased that better before.
The GUNS are modern symbols of our (yours and mine) rights.
Please research the "tea Act" of 1773. It passed Great Britians parliament on May 10th 1773. This is not my interpertation of history, it is what happened.
Please recite the first sentence of the constitution of the United States, here let me help get you started "We the people"....
The people (both you and I included) are the power of the goverment and have become complacent.
The militia is US you do understand that right? You, me, every citizen of the united states. A militia is not a goverment paid standing army. This is why the founding fathers made sure that "WE" have the "right to "bear arms".
And finally the goverment "belongs" to US, the citizens of the united states not lobbiest and big business. I probably could have phrased that better before.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Yet it is clear that you have no idea what a militia was. Thomas Jefferson addressed that when he wrote a letter defining the militia as every able-bodied citizen between the ages of 17 - 55 that could fight.No, your first statement was a myth. Guns were expensive, specialized tools for RURAL living. We aren't talking stone axes or 'weapons' here, we are talking 'guns' lethal, powerful remote projectile weapons.
The second amendment by no means says every man has the right to bear arms but instead that "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." There's a huge difference.
The stamp tax on tea and other goods was NOT a bailout of the East India company but an attempt to get colonists to foot the bill for the enormous expense of the French-Indian War which helped us out enormously but which we, naturally, didn't want to pay for.
When you the people 'put government where it belongs' tell the rest of us, okay? I hate searching for things that are mislaid.
Of course, you are also ignoring the fact that it specifically says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no way to alter the meaning of that phrase, because it is simple.
The right (this is not a government granted right obviously)
of the people (of everyone)
to keep and bear arms (to own and carry arms)
shall not be infringed (violated by the government)
Simple English, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it. Just some one that actually understands that the Constitution was not written in the kind of perversion of the English language that commonly is known as legalese.
What is amazing is that the Constitution, unlike many pieces of legislation, was written with out having each word redefined by the people writing it. That is to say that it was written in plain English, and the common usage was the correct usage in relation to its contents.
In short, the right of any individual to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under the constitution, regardless of what retards like you try to pervert it to mean.
The entire phrase is a sentence that contains an appositive, or a partially disconnected segment. The militia was merely a description of everyone capable of fighting in a community, so trying to define militia and dictate that that is the definition of who was granted the right to bear arms is imbecilic, because the definition that you would use is not the definition that the founders used.
There is no need to attempt to discern what the founders were referring to when it said well-regulated militia, because once again they would have been using well-regulated in a way that would reflect their times. Well-regulated in this case would refer to being capable of using their weapons accurately, and effectively, that is they were well trained, not actually regulated by the state.
shnkrmn
Well-Known Member
Research 'well-regulated militia'. well-regulated by whom. Why, the state, of course!
There is no mention of bearing arms other than in that context.
Whatever you may think.
The French-Indian War happened too. not my 'interpretation of history'.
One man's lobbyist is another's righteous advocate. I suppose the NRA would be allowed to continue defending your 'rights'.
Guns are not a symbol. They are weapons. My rights do not need a symbol. They are written in English somewhere or other, which I can read. I'm glad you like the Constitution by the way; it's a nifty historical document!
There is no mention of bearing arms other than in that context.
Whatever you may think.
The French-Indian War happened too. not my 'interpretation of history'.
One man's lobbyist is another's righteous advocate. I suppose the NRA would be allowed to continue defending your 'rights'.
Guns are not a symbol. They are weapons. My rights do not need a symbol. They are written in English somewhere or other, which I can read. I'm glad you like the Constitution by the way; it's a nifty historical document!
Wrong, wrong, and furthermore WRONG. The state has nothing to do with a militia, citizens run militias, not states. States run armies, states do not regulate militias in any way. Well regulated in this context means well trained, and disciplined.
The last time I looked the US Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND. In no way is it just a historical document. A historical document would be a letter written about the battle of Antietam or something.
And the US Constitution certainly does guarantee each and every citizen the right to own and brandish a firearm, it will never mean anything else, no matter where you put the comma.
You got a lot of learnin to do.
shnkrmn
Well-Known Member
I DO have a lot of learning to do. Yes, well-regulated for the security of the state.
Yes the US constitution is the law of the land, I was being facetious.
The USC does not guarantee your right to 'brandish' a firearm. That would be terroristic to others, thereby negating their liberties of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are rather more important than your 'right' to brandish firearms.
Cite an authority for me that clarifies militias as being non-state entities. That would be very interesting to see. Don't go to the Federalist papers or some other gassing of the founders. That wouldn't be the LAW OF THE LAND, would it?
Glad to see you still haven't corrected the citation in your sig to DYLAN Thomas; way to stick to your guns!
Yes the US constitution is the law of the land, I was being facetious.
The USC does not guarantee your right to 'brandish' a firearm. That would be terroristic to others, thereby negating their liberties of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are rather more important than your 'right' to brandish firearms.
Cite an authority for me that clarifies militias as being non-state entities. That would be very interesting to see. Don't go to the Federalist papers or some other gassing of the founders. That wouldn't be the LAW OF THE LAND, would it?
Glad to see you still haven't corrected the citation in your sig to DYLAN Thomas; way to stick to your guns!
iivan740
Well-Known Member
How about simply using the definition of army and militia?
Army : a permanent organization of the military land forces of a nation or state .
Militia : the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Unless you consider yourself property of the state, i'd say that these definitions should do.
I copied and pasted the definitions wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
As far as the tea tax and french indian war, I said that it was part of the reason. The USA was founded for many reasons.
iivan740
Well-Known Member
It took a moment to sink in. Are you serious. Police, military, secret service, fbi, cia, and on and on all "brandish" (your word not mine) firearms. Are they "terroristic to others"? Do they negate your "liberties of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Noone who carries a gun in public is automatically negating you freedoms or liberties. They may be protecting them. The actions that a person takes with the gun determines the intent. That's not to say that a visible weapon isn't a great deterrent.
Are you really all mad that some citizens had their legal firearms out in plain site? The act of carrying a weapon does not equate to a threat of violence?
There is nothing threatening or terroristic about someone carrying a gun. It's no more terroristic than carrying a stick, carrying a rope , or having your hands in public view. All of which are weapons.
My point here is not to equate guns to other weapons, it is to point out that the fact that one weapon being more sophisticated than another does not make it more threatening or terroristic. And before you say anything about my choice of weapons, they are all legitimate battlefield weapons trained with and used throughout history.
shnkrmn
Well-Known Member
Is a nuclear weapon more threatening or terroristic than a knife?
NoDrama used the term brandish, I was repeating it. There is a difference between packing heat and 'brandishing' a weapon.
I don't recall firearms being used in warfare throughout history. The battle of kurukshetra may have turned out differently.
Anyway, a legitimate battlefield weapon (whatever that means, what is not legitimate?) does not belong at a political rally.
Ever.
My point here is not to equate guns to other weapons, it is to point out that the fact that one weapon being more sophisticated than another does not make it more threatening or terroristic. And before you say anything about my choice of weapons, they are all legitimate battlefield weapons trained with and used throughout history.
NoDrama used the term brandish, I was repeating it. There is a difference between packing heat and 'brandishing' a weapon.
I don't recall firearms being used in warfare throughout history. The battle of kurukshetra may have turned out differently.
Anyway, a legitimate battlefield weapon (whatever that means, what is not legitimate?) does not belong at a political rally.
Ever.
My point here is not to equate guns to other weapons, it is to point out that the fact that one weapon being more sophisticated than another does not make it more threatening or terroristic. And before you say anything about my choice of weapons, they are all legitimate battlefield weapons trained with and used throughout history.
what will it cost to pay for the extra security that will now be at all the rallies? there were 6 snipers on him (allegedly), the next event there were 6 people with guns. now we are up to 36 snipers. what happens next week? 216 snipers? who pays for all this. "we don't want new taxes, but we will certainly help run up the tab."