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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
Please post the list of things that the local community is allowed to defend itself from.
The post I was responding to implied that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so citizens could use deadly force to overthrow the government. Specifically, it said, "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."
I was stating that the 2nd Amendment is not about keeping the central government honest. In response to your question, I don't even know that the writers of that Amendment even intended for the term "free State" to apply to a town, a county, one of the States in the US, or to the entirety of the USA. I don't know if such a list exists, but I'm fairly certain that the Supreme Court would view an armed insurrection as treason, not an exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights.
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....
People can read. The trend for gun purchases have risen to new heights even before Christmas. The Christmas sales were dwarfed by the sales for the whole year, ....as indicated by the link.
You just don't want your liberal, limp-wristed Obama to criticized.
People can read. The trend for gun purchases have risen to new heights even before Christmas. The Christmas sales were dwarfed by the sales for the whole year, ....as indicated by the link.
You just don't want your liberal, limp-wristed Obama to criticized.
What's up with all the anger and insults?
What is so liberal about saying December 2011 and November 2011 set the montly records in gun sales when they in fact did set records? It is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinon.
I have absolutely no clue why someone would get so bitter about something like this. Is this a big deal for you? Is there a reason you don't want to admit that Nov, and Dec set the records? If there is a point, I can't imagine what it could be.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 01-09-2012 at 12:07 PM..
The post I was responding to implied that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so citizens could use deadly force to overthrow the government. Specifically, it said, "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."
I will stipulate that that may not be its sole purpose - but is it necessarily excluded? That's my point. To defend "the security of a free state" does not specify what it is to be defended from. The threat to that free state may just as likely be internal as external.
Edit - We may actually agree, I think I had you confused with another poster when I posted that.
What is so liberal about saying December 2011 and November 2011 set the montly records in gun sales when they in fact did set records? It is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinon.
I have absolutely no clue why someone would get so bitter about something like this. Is this a big deal for you? Is there a reason you don't want to admit that Nov, and Dec set the records? If there is a point, I can't imagine what it could be.
Hey,...I'm starting a book and don't have time to waste on you right now. I'll get back to you when I finish. The book is by Glenn Beck, and is titled, ...Arguing with Idiots.
Gun sales were up again last year and people continue to stockpile guns and ammunition at a rate unprecidented in history yet stories like this persist. \
Hey,...I'm starting a book and don't have time to waste on you right now. I'll get back to you when I finish. The book is by Glenn Beck, and is titled, ...Arguing with Idiots.
Good day!!!
I guess you already finished "Arguing Just For The Sake of Arguing".
I am sure Beck is happy to have your money. LOL
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 01-09-2012 at 01:30 PM..
Gun sales were up again last year and people continue to stockpile guns and ammunition at a rate unprecidented in history yet stories like this persist. \
Buy Gold
Buy Guns
Buy Ammo
Buy survival supplies
First rule of marketing "Create a Need"
And the easiest way to create a need is to Manufacture a Fear.........
And the easiest way to create a need is to Manufacture a Fear.........
Are you referring to what progs keep saying here or are you referring to the words of Obama to the nice lady that he is working "below the radar" to get to gun control. Did he actually say those words? If not what did he say.
I will stipulate that that may not be its sole purpose - but is it necessarily excluded? That's my point. To defend "the security of a free state" does not specify what it is to be defended from. The threat to that free state may just as likely be internal as external.
Edit - We may actually agree, I think I had you confused with another poster when I posted that.
I'm sure there are constitutional legal scholars that have fairly good concepts of what the writers meant. There must be some writings that provide some insight into their 18th century thinking and contemporary legal thinking in general. Unfortunately, I'm not a constitutional scholar or even a lawyer, so all I have to go on is my own reading and interpretation of the words themselves. It might have been good if the writers had left us a few interpretative examples to use in trying to understand each Amendment, but alas, they didn't.
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.
