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.
May be you should missed a thread entirely on THAT subject. You may look here.
Now, tell me, why are you trying to avoid a conversation on these words as it pertains to the second amendment: "A Well Regulated Militia".
And if you it wasn't deliberate, perhaps next time you post, there will be an explanation of your take on the subject. I look forward to it.
I am not avoiding that part of the ammendment. The OP subject "Right or privilege to bear arms? and that is what I have directly addressed as to why I believe it is a right. However, I will address your point on the next message I write. Take care.
I am not avoiding that part of the ammendment. The OP subject "Right or privilege to bear arms? and that is what I have directly addressed as to why I believe it is a right. However, I will address your point on the next message I write. Take care.
I certainly hope you will do that with your next response.
I certainly hope you will do that with your next response.
Waaait a minute! In the rush between things I remember something. I go back to what I asked before. You kept asking questions without directly expressing your point. The OP is if to bear arms is a privilege or a right. I have addressed that point directly. Now you have not addressed anything. YOU tell me if it is a right of privilege. If by doing so you use the first part of the ammendment, go for it. I have no problem with it. You state your claim first, don't keep asking leading questions. I will address your points once you put them on the table. Take care.
Waaait a minute! In the rush between things I remember something. I go back to what I asked before. You kept asking questions without directly expressing your point. The OP is if to bear arms is a privilege or a right. I have addressed that point directly. Now you have not addressed anything. YOU tell me if it is a right of privilege. If by doing so you use the first part of the ammendment, go for it. I have no problem with it. You state your claim first, don't keep asking leading questions. I will address your points once you put them on the table. Take care.
I expected you to avoid the conversation. If you want to discuss it as a right owing to second amendment, use the entirety of the second amendment, not selective parts of it.
That said, it is impossible to say whether it is a right or a privilege. They say it is a right, but at the same time, is it a right like a right to life? Or, a right to free speech where your speech may be regulated via many means, and can cost you? We know they say free speech. But, is it free? Is it a right? Or, is it a privilege?
Since the people are the militia, that each individual has the right to own a weapon capable of defending this nation at moments call. A single shot isn't going to cut it.
Unless they have been convicted of murder or theft, by a jury of their peers.
I expected you to avoid the conversation. If you want to discuss it as a right owing to second amendment, use the entirety of the second amendment, not selective parts of it.
That said, it is impossible to say whether it is a right or a privilege. They say it is a right, but at the same time, is it a right like a right to life? Or, a right to free speech where your speech may be regulated via many means, and can cost you? We know they say free speech. But, is it free? Is it a right? Or, is it a privilege?
When your rights are taken and then given back as a privilege, for a fee, you live under the kings control.
Why did they have open carry for 120 years after the signing of the Constitution.(some still have it)
No one change the Amendment.
Since the people are the militia, that each individual has the right to own a weapon capable of defending this nation at moments call. A single shot isn't going to cut it.
Unless they have been convicted of murder or theft, by a jury of their peers.
Are they? Militia is people, but people is not militia.
But, that is not the point of contention. Inclusion of such inconveniences to y'all, "well regulated militia", is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
When your rights are taken and then given back as a privilege, for a fee, you live under the kings control.
Social acceptance, not fee, is the existing problem. There are limits put on your "free speech" too. No?
Are they? Militia is people, but people is not militia.
But, that is not the point of contention. Inclusion of such inconveniences to y'all, "well regulated militia", is.
Regulated as in organized with leadership.
We were not to have a full time standing army. It was to be voluntary as needed when our nation was attacked.
If it is a privilege granted by government to bear arms, or type of arms, then it is in the power of government to ERADICATE that privilege.
If it is a right that existed BEFORE government, which was instituted to SECURE RIGHTS, then government has no delegated power to ERADICATE, REGULATE, RESTRICT or INFRINGE that right.
Can't have it both ways.
Either it's a RIGHT secured, or it is a PRIVILEGE denied.
IT IS A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It is the Constitution and anyone that wants ANY gun control or other type weapons restriction is violating or wanting to violate that right and at that moment should be removed with force from office and jailed. The only reason they are not removed is all the cowards that agree with their scumbag ideas.
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.