Next time someone says they are for gun controll...
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
JPC sr
James P. Cusick Sr.
Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.
That could be true if the National Guard let the soldiers take the weapons home with them, carry the rifle home, drive the tank home, but since the weapons are gov controlled and not controlled by the citizen soldiers then the 2nd amendment stands for individuals to bare individual arms.
The founding fathers created their own "militia" from citizen soldiers to fight the police and to fight the gov and that is the basis of the 2nd amendment,
the citizens must have the right and the ability to fight against our own gov if it becomes tyranical as the British gov had done to form the USA.
forestal said:
That could be true if the National Guard let the soldiers take the weapons home with them, carry the rifle home, drive the tank home, but since the weapons are gov controlled and not controlled by the citizen soldiers then the 2nd amendment stands for individuals to bare individual arms.The founding fathers created their own "militia" from citizen soldiers to fight the police and to fight the gov and that is the basis of the 2nd amendment,
the citizens must have the right and the ability to fight against our own gov if it becomes tyranical as the British gov had done to form the USA.
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
JPC sr said:
The founding fathers created their own "militia" from citizen soldiers to fight the police and to fight the gov and that is the basis of the 2nd amendment,
the citizens must have the right and the ability to fight against our own gov if it becomes tyranical as the British gov had done to form the USA.
Wow
something Intelligent from JPC I can Agree with ........ 
awpitt
Main Streeter
forestal said:
forestal, you’re wrong. If the Second Amendment said, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, you would be correct but it doesn’t, the Second Amendment said 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.” You need to read the entire Second Amendment.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>
This_person
Well-Known Member
Forestal, if you took an English course you would know that the way you're interpretting the second amendment is wrong. You've had that proven to you over and over again. But, since you live a certain logic all your own, let me try a little logic with you.forestal said:
If the concept of the second amendment was to arm a federal militia, why does Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution read (in part):
The Congress shall have the power:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (sounds like they didn't really want a standing army, as pointed out above)
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (Arming? Could it be that the militia is not already armed?)
See, there are THE PEOPLE, who have the right to bear arms. Then, over and above that, there are Militia. The militia is a government group, appointed by and maintained by the states respectively, that can be organized, armed, and disciplined while they are in the service of the federal government (sort of like how the Civil War was fought). Then, there's a standing army, which we're never to fund for more than two years at a time. These are three separate groups of the population - THE PEOPLE, average Joe and Jane Citizen; THE MILITIA, state appointed officers, trained and logistically supplied by the federal government all the time; and, THE STANDING ARMY, a federally controlled group made up of state militias and volunteers or drafted individuals for a time of armed conflict. Because we need a militia (state appointed and generally state run when not needed by the federal government), we need to ensure that THE PEOPLE know how to have and use arms. All the time. Therefore, even the people who are not in the militia have the right (not the requirement, the right) to bear arms. ALL THE PEOPLE.
If you have any more questions, I'll be glad to go into more detail.
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
Thanks ..... Kerad
for having the decency to sign your Red Karma ............
for having the decency to sign your Red Karma ............
To Forest and all those who think the Second Amendment is about the National Guard, try reading these.
http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/second.htm
http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html
http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/second.htm
http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html
Novus Collectus
New Member
I am a liberal and my support of the 2nd amendment being an individual civil right is because being a liberal I support ALL civil rights.demsformd said:
You are right, a true civil libertatian, be they liberal or not, must believe in the rights of the "People". The rights of the "People" is mentioned in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth amendments of the Bill of Rights and so the meaning of "the People" obviously does not mean "militia" or only "militia".
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
PsyOps
Pixelated
You can pull single examples (I'm sure there are more for both sides) to support both sides of this argument. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitutionality of owning a gun.RadioPatrol said:Hmm ........ The Swiss Have Assault Weapons in most every home, and Look how many people are not getting shot Forestool
Refer back to Swiss
wanker .............
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
PsyOps said:
yeah I know ...... I was responding to Forestool comment about Iraqi lack of gun control .........
Andy was right though, it is the unwillingness of Sunni's and Shia's ; Al Qaeda ; Hamas, Hezbolla, Fatah al Islam, Fatah al Intifada, to quit killing each other in the Name of Islam .............
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/05/al_qaedas_new_front_in_lebanon.php