A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (Taliban, soldier)
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.
Absolutely not! And to propagate such action is sedition, and to perpetrate it treason.
The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation. There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally. The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy, and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence. Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their citizens.
You - and people like you - would do well to learn from history, and stop trying to rewrite it.
Read the Declaration of Independence. It makes it pretty clear under what circumstances the founders considered it justifiable to rebel. That tax on whiskey was not enough of a reason. It was constitutionally and lawfully enacted by an elected government. When the government steps beyond its bounds, when it murders people, strips people of their rights, etc., it's justifiable to overthrow it. It wasn't just taxes and a lack of representation. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was micromanaging their affairs, limiting where they could live, quartering soldiers in private homes, etc., etc.
The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document; and it is not authority for what you adbocate, which is sedition.
AR 16's might be a reasonable restriction in big cities, seriously, seems like assault rifles should be a restriction everywhere.
Assault rifles are restricted very heavily in this country. You need many pages of background checks, national fingerprint checks and even the signiture of your local Chief of police and pay a tax before you can legally own one. Right now the waiting period while BATFE approves your application is over 6 months. Semi-auto rifles are not restricted any more than any other hunting or sporting rifle and have been in wide use across the country since 1915.
Read the Declaration of Independence. It makes it pretty clear under what circumstances the founders considered it justifiable to rebel. That tax on whiskey was not enough of a reason. It was constitutionally and lawfully enacted by an elected government. When the government steps beyond its bounds, when it murders people, strips people of their rights, etc., it's justifiable to overthrow it. It wasn't just taxes and a lack of representation. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was micromanaging their affairs, limiting where they could live, quartering soldiers in private homes, etc., etc.
Pretty funny post considering the fact that the same Founders sent the militia off to put down by force a tax revolt in western Ma.
Assault rifles are Class 3 items in this country and require a very intense BATF background check, tax, etc. An AR-15 is a SEMI-AUTO rifle, you pull the trigger and it fires ONE BULLET AT A TIME. The gunman DID NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT RIFLE. The media calls anything scary looking an assault rifle, but the definition of "assault" rifle includes full auto capability. Meaning that when you pull the trigger, the gun fires until empty. The gunman DID NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT RIFLE. An AR-15 is SEMI-AUTO, just like the Glock, Springfield, or any other pistol on the market.
Really wish the liberal media and anti-gun idiots would stop misusing this term.
Laws are only as effective as the enforcement od said laws. The problem with freedom is that it applies to all. If a gunshop owner refuses a sale because his gut screams bad news. He gets sued.
Most whacko's seem to pass themselves off pretty good when they need to.
I have no doubt that these mass murderers would find a way to commit their crime. Steal or rent a Uhaul truck and run down a crowd of people. Build bombs, or park a truck on the tracks used by passenger trains.
I myself am a gun owner and I shoot targets. I never committed a crime my guns. I should be punished because of a very select few???? I never met a fellow gun owner who used his weapon in a crime. I meet quite a few.
You want to blame someone? Blame the media who make a habit out of sensationalizing these crimes.
Blame the ATF who misuses their authority.
Blame the justice Department.
Blame the defence lawyers who paint their clients as the victims.
I have a CC permit. I seldom carry.
Blame the cowards who run instead of charge.
No it's easier to blame all who own and use their firearms in a responsible manner. Punish those who don't break the law. That makes a lot od sense.
What is the excuse for Chicago and DC? They have the most restrive laws on the books. Oh yeah its everyone elses fault. But dont blame the criminals. They didn't receive enoughlove.
When you look at the shooting in the movie theater, the gunman got of more than 70 rounds in one and a half minutes, the cops were on hand for crowd control and the bad guy ran out the back door. Now what would have happened if the gunman had 5 to 10 minutes waiting for the police to arrive like a normal 911 call. He had plenty of ammo, at the rate of 1 person every 10 to 12 seconds the dead would have been greater, but as soon as he realized guns were fixing to be shooting back he fled. If the movie goers had guns then he may have started shooting but the body count may have been way lower.
When bad thing happen, the police are minutes away, here the response was 90 seconds and 12 dead, I prefer to protect me and my family at all times, I don't advise this for those that do not believe guns are tools, if you have to stop and rationalize the whole thing then I wish you well because the man shooting at you won't wait.
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.
