Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 7:16:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Mar 4, 2020 7:29:49 GMT -5
They might just have a revolution if they try to forceabley confiscate people's guns. |
|
jtv
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by jtv on Mar 4, 2020 11:40:56 GMT -5
These Dems have went full blown whacko, playing to the radical base ... I hope gun owners wise up and see the threat these Dems are ... look at what they have done in Virginia .. we here have been lucky and have had a pro 2A legislature 2A for the most part in Indy for some time .... this country can not afford to let the Dems get a large toe hold at the national level ... this election we MUST take back the House and keep the Senate and keep Trump at the helm .... the Dems/socialists(one in the same) and their radicals will ruin this country more ways than just going after the 2A and that is a fact ....
|
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Mar 4, 2020 16:59:36 GMT -5
They come looking for a fight....they will find one. My question is....who are they going to get to come get them? You going to use law enforcement, the national guard, the military??? I have a funny feeling many of those folks will be standing on the other side of the ball on that topic! Asking those folks to impose tyranny on their fellow American's is going to be a tough sell. Regardless of if it's a law or an executive order!! Many take an oath to protect the citizens and the rights protected buy the constitution.....not some butt-head behind a desk in an office!
It's easy to sit in your fancy office surrounded by armed protection claiming that your going to confiscate guns....YOU ain't gonna do squat...YOU are just gonna hide behind your law and desk and position and money, is all they are going to do!
Let's see how them anti-gunners feel if we pull their ability to be protected....lets see what they think about that! You want to show me you have faith in the police to protect society....you go first!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 17:41:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Mar 5, 2020 10:37:08 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. Biden screwed up big time by asking Beto to be in charge of the anti-gun policy of the dems. My number one concern is health care insurance right now. Guns are probably second on my list of important things. I use to fish more than anything else. But last few years I started going to the shooting range to shoot my guns. So being able to shoot my guns is important to me not only for self-defense but for fun too. One of the Dems running for President (Bloomberg) asked why any hunter needed more than one bullet to shoot a deer. What Bloomberg doesn't know is that guns are kept in the house for protection from burglars and murders. I've seen videos of multiple criminals breaking into a home and shooting or beating the homeowners and robbing them. So we need more than one bullet to protect our homes. The Shotgun with more than one shotgun shell is important to protect our home. As is the AR15 with a 30 round magazine. It sometimes takes more than one shot to take down a full-grown burglar (man on dope). And if there are 4 men trying to break into your house and rob you it takes a 30 round magazine or more to take them out. So Mike Bloomberg needs to understand that we keep guns not just for hunting. The 2nd amendment was not written so that we could keep our muskets just for hunting game. No the 2nd amendment was written so that the people of the new country could rise up and throw out a tyrant in the future. The SCOTUS over the years has screwed that up. |
|
jtv
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by jtv on Mar 5, 2020 11:02:13 GMT -5
yep, the 2A isnt about 'hunting', it is much more than that, it's about your freedoms and safety, and that is something the dems want to take from you, they want to control you, whether it is the 2A or your health care ... we have the 'rights' in the BOR because of the 2A ...heck, many dems are fine with restricting the 1A and others ...
|
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Mar 5, 2020 11:17:37 GMT -5
yep, the 2A isnt about 'hunting', it is much more than that, it's about your freedoms and safety, and that is something the dems want to take from you, they want to control you, whether it is the 2A or your health care ... we have the 'rights' in the BOR because of the 2A ...heck, many dems are fine with restricting the 1A and others ... The feds, State and Local Governemnts are constantly violating the 4th amendment with illegal search and seizures these days and have been for a long time now. The problem is the SCOTUS can't read or changes the meaning of the constitution to suit their wants and needs. |
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Mar 5, 2020 11:19:41 GMT -5
Sounds like I need to go buy some more!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 5, 2020 11:55:04 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is going to go door to door to confiscate anything. Can you imagine trying to go through millions and millions of 4473 forms, or contacting the manufacturers and trying to find out what wholesaler, then retailer and then going through that paperwork to try and find who originally purchased a particular gun? What about guns sold in the private sector? There isn't a paper trail.
I don't see any of that happening.
If the democrats have their way, what they likely try to do is outlaw certain guns, magazines, etc and tell people they can either turn them into the police or be fined or jailed if they don't and are caught with them.
Do I think people will turn their guns in? Some will, most won't...
|
|
|
|
Post by benj on Mar 5, 2020 12:05:12 GMT -5
The second amendment is as follows: "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."
Doesn't say anything about hunting or in-home defense at all.
So we should break it down into its parts to discover its meaning. The first part: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is in our day and age, The National Guard. Today, weapons are provided from the government to those citizens who serve in the National Guard, while on duty.
The second part: " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is important because back in the days of the framers, the resources we enjoy today weren't available. They had to count on people providing their own firearm during times of national defense. Because of this, they implied that keeping arms meant you were going to serve and had been trained to serve when the nation needed you. The country was new and vulnerable, and they needed to ensure that they could quickly raise an army when threatened.
So what does all that mean for us today?
We enjoy freedom courtesy of a standing military and national guard(regulated militias of today), and if you're qualified( mentally, physically, meet the age requirements etc..) you are free to join at any time and be trained on the use of weapons of war.
Strictly speaking, if we wanted to live to the exact letter of the law, every qualified person who wanted to own a firearm would be a member of the National Guard, trained in its use, and be committed to serve when called. This would meet the requirements of the second amendment in our day.
But that isn't the case.
And now, my boys(6 and 8) get to enjoy the freedom of ALICE drills in their school. They are taught to run, hide, and as a last resort, fight. With books, erasers, pencils, chairs, whatever they can find in the classroom. SIX AND EIGHT year olds, tossing chairs at a lunatic trying to kill them with a gun.
That is what an obsession with a perversion of the 2nd amendment has brought us. An amendment that says nothing about hunting or in-home defense, but keeping Arms as a Requirement of service.
If someone considers themselves a "staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment" , then be for its intended purpose and live with the consequences. Otherwise, advocate a better fitting method of justifying recreational gun ownership with common sense laws that ensure public safety.
|
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Mar 5, 2020 12:27:05 GMT -5
Ben, you are putting words into the 2nd amendment that are not there. That is your interpretation of the 2nd. Mine is different. The militias were well regulated. But there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that said it requires the people to join the militia. They didn't have any national guards back when the 2nd amendment was written. The second part pertains to the people. IE All the people. And the people's right to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed. There is nothing saying that the people have to use those arms for any specific purpose at all. They are free to use those arms as they see fit. There are no restrictions at all. Shall not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Period.
|
|
jtv
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by jtv on Mar 5, 2020 12:37:31 GMT -5
what he said ^^... dont anyone ever use 'common sense' and Democrat in the same sentence , but 'common sense' depends on who's sense we are talking about, and with the dems, there isnt any there and they use that term as a mode of gun control in their propaganda ... no, it isnt right that the kids are taught to live in fear, but this is the liberal education system today .. I do and will support teachers/qualified people to carry in schools, our 'resource officers' are in every school here and they carry .. but then again, I can remember the "duck and cover" drills of the cold war era ....
|
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Mar 5, 2020 15:17:48 GMT -5
The second amendment and our ability to retain firearms ourselves keeps the power in our favor....where it should be. It enables us to remove the government via force if needed. It enables us to protect our rights and ensure the government works for US and not the other way around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 17:35:03 GMT -5
yep, the 2A isnt about 'hunting', it is much more than that, it's about your freedoms and safety, and that is something the dems want to take from you, they want to control you, whether it is the 2A or your health care ... we have the 'rights' in the BOR because of the 2A ...heck, many dems are fine with restricting the 1A and others ... Actually, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Or target shooting, or really even defending ourselves from the animals on the streets. It is about We the People being able to defend ourselves from a despotic government. Thomas Jefferson put it this way: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " The other benefits are simply peripheral to it`s original intent. And yes, absolutely, We the People have the power, we are the government. In the Declaration of Independence the Founders wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men , deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed,— That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.The caveat is, we have to hold our elected employees accountable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 17:57:15 GMT -5
The second amendment is as follows: "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."
Doesn't say anything about hunting or in-home defense at all.
So we should break it down into its parts to discover its meaning. The first part: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is in our day and age, The National Guard. Today, weapons are provided from the government to those citizens who serve in the National Guard, while on duty.
The second part: " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is important because back in the days of the framers, the resources we enjoy today weren't available. They had to count on people providing their own firearm during times of national defense. Because of this, they implied that keeping arms meant you were going to serve and had been trained to serve when the nation needed you. The country was new and vulnerable, and they needed to ensure that they could quickly raise an army when threatened.
So what does all that mean for us today?
We enjoy freedom courtesy of a standing military and national guard(regulated militias of today), and if you're qualified( mentally, physically, meet the age requirements etc..) you are free to join at any time and be trained on the use of weapons of war.
Strictly speaking, if we wanted to live to the exact letter of the law, every qualified person who wanted to own a firearm would be a member of the National Guard, trained in its use, and be committed to serve when called. This would meet the requirements of the second amendment in our day.
But that isn't the case.
And now, my boys(6 and 8) get to enjoy the freedom of ALICE drills in their school. They are taught to run, hide, and as a last resort, fight. With books, erasers, pencils, chairs, whatever they can find in the classroom. SIX AND EIGHT year olds, tossing chairs at a lunatic trying to kill them with a gun.
That is what an obsession with a perversion of the 2nd amendment has brought us. An amendment that says nothing about hunting or in-home defense, but keeping Arms as a Requirement of service.
If someone considers themselves a "staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment" , then be for its intended purpose and live with the consequences. Otherwise, advocate a better fitting method of justifying recreational gun ownership with common sense laws that ensure public safety.
Oh so much misinformation here. The first part of the Amendment is what`s known as a Prefatory clause, it explains what the following statement is there for. Understand that in that day and time, the militia was literally "The People". The militia was made up of all able-bodied men, and they were to supply their own weapons, and, the militia had the very same weapons the British Army had. You could paraphrase the Second Amendment to say something like this: "Because a well armed citizenry is vital to the security of a free nation: the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The Second Amendment, just like all the other amendments are granted to The People, NOT government, why would you think the Second Amendment would be any different? Fact is, it is not. Thomas Jefferson said this: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " Understanding this crystal clear explanation of why we have the Second Amendment, it makes no sense that the militia could be the National Guard, since the Guard is a government entity. No government entity is going to protect The People from a despotic government. The Second Amendment says exactly what it means, and means exactly what it says: shall not be infringed. I sympathize with your concern for your sons, because we all have children and grandchildren in school, and are just as potentially vulnerable, and we agonize over all our kids safety. The truth is however, hindering the constitutional rights of law-abiding American citizens does nothing to enhance public safety, and there`s nothing "common sense" about trampling constitutional rights in response to the acts of criminals. The breakdown of the traditional family is the root cause for all of the societal issues we face, but that`s a discussion for another time and place.
We will not accept further infringements on the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that specifically says shall not be infringed. It`s ineffective, it`s inappropriate, and it`s illegal. |
|
