Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, what I'm saying is that they intended upon forming a government ruled by democratic principles, not the rule of a mob with guns, who may or may not represent the majority, as tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.
Not at all - obviously a government will not authorize the right of the citizens to overthrow it. But the right to keep and bear arms is not synonymous with the right to overthrow the government. It is the right to have insurance against tyranny, no more and no less.
No government can give the people the right to overthrow it. But the 2nd amendment says nothing of the sort anyway. It doesn't even touch on the subject. That's the beauty of it. It says: you may be prepared. No more and no less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
By your definition, any time a group feels tyrannically repressed, whether actual or imagined, they have the right to overthrow the democratically elected government using the tool of firearms. That isn't what the founders intended and is quite the opposite. Instead of considering the "militia" to be a force to be used against a tyrannical central government, the militia was intended to be the defense against foreign invasions and domestic insurrections.
Except that I'm not arguing that they have the "right" to overthrow the government.
That would invalidate the point of that government existing in the first place. I'm arguing that they have the right to hold weapons should they ever need them. The security of a free state is not something that can not be threatened from within but only by foreign invaders. I'd venture to say that more often than not the threat comes from within.
What is "the security of a free state?" Why is it limited only to a violent attack from an external invader?
I will also add that by your definition, any time a group is repressed, they should have no recourse. When it comes to tyranny, obviously the constitution has been violated anyway, why would they expect the people to abide by the laws when a tyrannical government has already stomped on them?
Speak for yourself, but this NRA member just bought some more only because they are so cheap. Also, a lot of people are buying them as Christmas presents.
As for crime: crime is down big time, so I don't know where you get your information.
Here are a couple of links to bolster my comments:
These links substantiate the previous post, if you care to read them.
Won't hold my breath........
Like I said I am an NRA member, but thanks for the link. Record sales before Christmas proves what I said about people buying guns for gifts (NRA agrees). It is a great gift. I got a Sig for my wife. Thanks for proving my point
Like I said I am an NRA member, but thanks for the link. Record sales before Christmas proves what I said about people buying guns for gifts (NRA agrees). It is a great gift. I got a Sig for my wife. Thanks for proving my point
Gifting had little to do with the increased gun sales in 2011. The FBI received 14.6 million background checks during the first 11 months in 2011, and about 10% of that number was requested in December . By your reasoning Christmas was EVERY MONTH. Quite a stretch there, sir. Must be difficult trying to pat yourself on the back.
If you had bother to read the entire link (instead of stopping at the point YOU thought reinforced your claim), you might just have become a little more educated about reasoning behind increased gun sales. But, it's doubtful you want to become that person.
Are you saying that Obama did not tell Ms. Brady that they are working "under the radar"? I read that quote so many times and places that I just took it for granted that it happened. I just looked on Google and found that only right leaning blogs and newspapers have him recorded saying those words so I won't belabor you with quotes they have. Is there a chance that that many people used voice over information against The Won?
I fail to see why anybody should place any credence on what was reportedly said. Until, and unless, some bill is sent to Congress from the oval office requesting that it be passed (irregardless of the constitutionality of it), then the President has DONE nothing that has any impact on any citizen's right to own guns. He hasn't even endorsed any bill introduced by a member of Congress.
What he said to Mrs. Brady means very little when measured against what he has done (or not done, in this case).
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-09-2012 at 07:22 AM..
Reason: forgot something
too many politicians equate the 2nd Amendment with hunting and other sporting uses. when in fact it has nothing to do with hunting at all, except for being good target practice.
the 2nd Amendment has always been about keeping the central goverment honest, away from tyranny, defending oneself and the state.
That's not what the 2nd Amendment is about at all. The 2nd Amendment says, "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." That means the citizens can bring their own weapons to use as a member of the local militia to defend the community. It says nothing about hunting or attacking the central government.
Gifting had little to do with the increased gun sales in 2011. The FBI received 14.6 million background checks during the first 11 months in 2011, and about 10% of that number was requested in December . By your reasoning Christmas was EVERY MONTH. Quite a stretch there, sir. Must be difficult trying to pat yourself on the back.
If you had bother to read the entire link (instead of stopping at the point YOU thought reinforced your claim), you might just have become a little more educated about reasoning behind increased gun sales. But, it's doubtful you want to become that person.
December 2011 set the record for a single month sales for guns in US history. The previous record was November 2011. Most of the guns were bought as gifts for other people.
I choose to leave the retarded laugh and personal remarks out of my post.
It is what is it is, and for God know what reason you are trying to twist facts into something else. Go figure....
Quote:
Gun dealers requested more than 1.5 million background checks on buyers in December, the highest single-month figure since the stats began being kept — and one that topped the previous record, set in November 2011, CNN reported.
More than 100,000 background checks — a requirement for a gun sale — were ordered on December 23, making it the second all-time busiest day for gun buying. The first was set on Black Friday in 2011, when nearly 130,000 requests were made.
That's not what the 2nd Amendment is about at all. The 2nd Amendment says, "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." That means the citizens can bring their own weapons to use as a member of the local militia to defend the community. It says nothing about hunting or attacking the central government.
Please post the list of things that the local community is allowed to defend itself from.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
