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.
Not our natural rights. Some are explicitly protected, and the ones not explicitly listed are retained by us, so says the 9th Amendment. Natural rights are assumed based on existence itself. The people are born with them, and the ones listed in the Bill of Rights are not granted, but are instead listed as being free from government limitation or removal. The 9th covers the ones we possess but were not explicitly listed. And the 10th Amendment takes it all one step further and says if the government power wasn't specifically enumerated in the preceding document, then the government does not have that power and that power belongs to the states and the people.
The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that is assumed as part of existence, and the government cannot abridge/deny that right. It was not granted by the government, it was listed as something we already possess that the government cannot f_u_kc with.
The federal government was established to govern the states and secure our rights from state intrusion.
Not to govern the people directly, ever.
Would you, in your experience and wisdom, offer up the purpose for such honorable hunting as opposed to the ambush style?
As in ....so as not to starve during harsh winters?
Why why why still hunt ????????????
I hunt to fill the freezer and I want the leanest, least hormone/drug filled protein I can get. I'm also cheap.
You are suggesting that we pay to arm schools, so that people with mental illness can carry guns, yet we don't have enough money to supply books and pencils unless the underpaid teacher pays for it. That doesn't seem right.
Here's a decent response to the OP. How about we follow 2A and quit with all this rambo nonsense. The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not specify what kind of arms, so while you claim it does not prevent you from having AR15's, or tanks, or whatnot, I will counter that it does not guarantee it either. So, if we follow the law, we could put some smart controls on guns, and who gets them, and on what is allowed or not, without infringing on ANYONE's rights.
I know you won't hear any part of that, but that is the truth.
your post makes no sense what so ever. for instance just where have i EVER suggested that those who are mentally ill should be allowed to own firearms?
as to the second amendment, i guess i have to educate you as well. lets start with the branch of the military that is constitutionally protected, and that is the navy. the founding fathers did not want a large standing army, but rather they wanted state and local militias that would protect the country from invasion.
the navy was set up to keep the sea lanes open and free.
and since the militias were set up to defend the country, they needed access to the latest firearms available. and that is where the first part of the second amendment comes
"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the protection of a free state" well regulated back then meant in good working order.
and since they wanted a citizen military, the second part of the second amendment comes into play
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
this means the founding fathers wanted the citizens to have access to the latest and greatest firearms available. and that means if i could afford to own and fly an F16, then i should be able to own one. if i could afford to own and operate an M1 abrhams tank, i should be able to own one. same with stinger missiles, an M1A2 .50 caliber machine gun, an M60 machines gun, or even an AR15 if i choose.
the problem isnt the guns, its the people that use them illegally. a gun is just a piece of metal and plastic. it is an inanimate object that requires a human agency to operate. but far too many people mess their panties when they just see a gun of any kind so they blame the gun for everything, instead of the person that wields the gun.
And with a few "black" accessories, a muzzle loader would have been banned under the 1994 assault weapons bill. It was based on looks alone.
Not quite. Your rifle had to be semi-auto with a detachable box magazine and at least 2 scary features like a pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, ect to be counted as an "assault weapon".
Note that it does NOT say that you are entitled to weapons of war and further note than when the constitution was written - they were using musket rifles.
THAT is what you are entitled to.
If you want to get a musket rifle, you have that right, but if you wanna carry it around just in case a situation arises where it'll require you to use it for self defense, and spend a minute or two to load the gun powder, the projectile and the equivalent of a primer to make the musket usable, I'd say your chances of surviving are zero.
You are suggesting that we pay to arm schools, so that people with mental illness can carry guns, yet we don't have enough money to supply books and pencils unless the underpaid teacher pays for it. That doesn't seem right.
Here's a decent response to the OP. How about we follow 2A and quit with all this rambo nonsense. The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not specify what kind of arms, so while you claim it does not prevent you from having AR15's, or tanks, or whatnot, I will counter that it does not guarantee it either. So, if we follow the law, we could put some smart controls on guns, and who gets them, and on what is allowed or not, without infringing on ANYONE's rights.
I know you won't hear any part of that, but that is the truth.
How much would you like to bet that this school never ever has a problem with a mass shooter?
your post makes no sense what so ever. for instance just where have i EVER suggested that those who are mentally ill should be allowed to own firearms?
as to the second amendment, i guess i have to educate you as well. lets start with the branch of the military that is constitutionally protected, and that is the navy. the founding fathers did not want a large standing army, but rather they wanted state and local militias that would protect the country from invasion.
the navy was set up to keep the sea lanes open and free.
and since the militias were set up to defend the country, they needed access to the latest firearms available. and that is where the first part of the second amendment comes
"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the protection of a free state" well regulated back then meant in good working order.
and since they wanted a citizen military, the second part of the second amendment comes into play
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
this means the founding fathers wanted the citizens to have access to the latest and greatest firearms available. and that means if i could afford to own and fly an F16, then i should be able to own one. if i could afford to own and operate an M1 abrhams tank, i should be able to own one. same with stinger missiles, an M1A2 .50 caliber machine gun, an M60 machines gun, or even an AR15 if i choose.
the problem isnt the guns, its the people that use them illegally. a gun is just a piece of metal and plastic. it is an inanimate object that requires a human agency to operate. but far too many people mess their panties when they just see a gun of any kind so they blame the gun for everything, instead of the person that wields the gun.
So are you claiming that those who own assault rifles are part of a "well regulated militia"??? And if you think you should have the right to own tanks and missiles, you are one of the people with mental issues that shouldn't be allowed to have guns.....
No, the problem isn't the gun. It is people like you, who want to buy an AR-15 so you can go out into the woods and swing your **** around in front of your friends while shooting cans, and to keep that ability, you are willing to let children die in their schools.
This is one of the dumbest things I have seen today. You don't have to worship a god to value human life. If you truly believe that, you must have an IQ lower than most people with mental retardation.
That's uncalled for, I am a Christian and I value human life.
Computers and the Internet didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written.
Freedom of the press meant a type set printing press.....so that's all the 1st amendment guarantees you.
Most people would agree with you about the analogy. Also, most people support our law enforcement when they prosecute pedophiles who use the internet to lure underage sex victims. Are you saying you don't? By your analogy, the police should not be able to restrict ANY use of the internet.
(Or, more correctly, by what you actually typed, we should only have printing presses and muskets. Is that what you meant?)
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.
