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.
Well, daaa That is exactly the reason, and self defense. How can you truly be free if you cannot defend yourself against the tyranny of a dictator? The first thing dictators do is try to confiscate all the weapons.
No, the first thing they do is crackdown on resistance i.e. limit the freedom of speech
Why was Sam Adams such a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment?
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." Sammy Adams
Why was Sam Adams such a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment?
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." Sammy Adams
Ok, I found the quote. It comes from Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Pages 86 and 87. There is no indication that it was Sam Adams who said or proposed it. It only says that a motion was made and seconded and the motion, or the quote in context, reads "And that the said Counstitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience ; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms ; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them ; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances ; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions"
So whoever proposed that, and we don't know who it was, was talking about all rights not just the right to bear arms.
That's nonsense. I don't know anyone who wants to protect criminals. I want to see both sides disarmed and the societal problems tackled that cause people to do stupid things in the first place (drugs, poverty, etc.). And while working on that we should rethink what being armed means, and what it doesn't. In the amendment it doesn't say firearms, but arms, which can be any tool to defend oneself, doesn't have to be lethal...
If you truly want societal problems solved you need to look closer at the policies of the Democrat party. They just enable societies problems.
There is no problem with gun ownership among the law abiding population, only with the criminal and mentally sick crowd. And banning a type of rifle or amount of rounds a magazine can hold is not addressing the problem (shotguns can hold 9 rounds with 9 bullets in each round) at all, just making the uninformed feel better.
But if we address the mental issues than Big Pharma comes into play and we know how powerful of a group they are. Most of the major TV networks get a lot of money from the drug makers. Don't want to **** them off. Follow the money, it answers most of your questions.
So nothing will be solved, but some will think all is just fine.
I bet if it is asked right... 98% will agree with the protection against tyranny position.
The question is how many other positions they will also agree with.
Quote:
Obama is proving them right. I figure he will make a grab for ALL weapons by the time his 2nd term comes to an end and in the process declare martial law,suspend congress.
otoh... I'd bet that fewer than 5% would agree with this sort of paranoia.
The first amendment is also a protection against tyranny. Perhaps even more than the second amendment
The first amendment is not a protection against tyranny. It's a right given to us that can be taken away just as easily. Having the ability to defend yourself is a step in the right direction to protecting yourself against tyranny.
England had no appreciable role in WW2? Those RAF troops that fought with my US Aircorp father would disagree.
There were a lot of troops from various countries that fought in that world war. The key word is appreciable. The UK had no appreciable role in that fight. The German campaign was decided in the east and Japan was almost solely a US endeavor. The Italian theater, being more of a sideshow, was still spearheaded by the USA.
Obama is proving them right. I figure he will make a grab for ALL weapons by the time his 2nd term comes to an end and in the process declare martial law,suspend congress. There ya go. True life Dictator.
Nonsense.
1) Confiscating 300M weapons from US citizens is practically impossible, regardless of what Obama wants.
2) I really don't see how handguns and rifles can prevent a government takeover. That may have worked in 1776, but today you better start accumulating battle tanks, attack helicopters and laser guided missiles. In the future an airforce may be also necessary.
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.
That is exactly the reason, and self defense. How can you truly be free if you cannot defend yourself against the tyranny of a dictator? The first thing dictators do is try to confiscate all the weapons.
to my Congresswoman and Senators at the national level AND to my State Reps.
