The Unmitigated Gall! Democrats to introduce Gun Control legislation tomorrow!

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by 46ACE

 

I think Hamilton may be getting a bad rap here. Study his writings in the Federalist Papers on taxation around 35#. He said much there and elsewhere that indicated that he did NOT like the engish model of anything. He also said much to defend militas as a grass roots organization. If you like I can post some of his words.

Thankyou
I honestly don't know all that much about Hamilton.. I'll read more about him.I am pretty much opposed to an overly powerful central govt.though...

bs.AT anti gins its against 2nd ammendment.. also would make them "safer"

reply to post by 46ACE


In fact, on centralized power, Alex had the idea that state armes could be used to fight other state armies if need be and we didnt need a federal army. This was on the issues of standing fed armies. Everybody was really afraid of standing federal armies in the post war years. Some argued that without the fed armies and a fed gov the union may desolve into state conflicts with no higher body to regulate. Be that as it may Alex in my opinion was very much in favor and you had to be at that time of as much state power as could be had.

And something else... to be called a "federal" back in those days didnt take much. The states were feeling their oats and you had to tread softly and really make a smooth case for federal power at that point.

Hamilton could certainly not be mistaken for a modern day "Federal" if he could be brought forward to this time frame....imho.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Adyta

 

I absolutely believe in the second amendment but I also believe that Congress has the right to add restrictions to it as they do with the rest of the Constitution. The founders were not stupid and they knew it would need to changed and guided while keeping the basic belief of it.

Do you really think the founders would have wanted people to have the right to lace thier front yard with anti-personal mines and strap hellfire missles to the front hood of their pick-up? Of course not.

They did believe in the right to bear arms but as they have with alot of the Constitution they left it up to Congress to modify depending on the needs of the day. This is why they specifically told the people how to amend it. They knew it would have to be changed to fit the times.

While it's silly to think that the Founders could even dream of a thing like a Hellfire missile, the intent of the 2nd Amendment is clear: to enable the citizenry to throw off an oppressive government. In order to do that, people must have weapons that are equivalent to those of any force the government chooses to array against you. I don't think I'm going to run out and buy a tank, but under the 2nd Amendment I should have that right.

Just as long as the people have unfettered access to small arms - pistols, military-style weapons like the AR and AK platforms - and ammunition for those weapon systems, I don't have a complaint. If the need for something heavier arises, say a civil war or revolution, there's always the National Guard armory; plus whatever can be "liberated" from the "enemy," whoever that may be.

ETA: S&F4UOP

they are useing this bill to make a deal on the debt limit.

The dems will sign on for whatever the repubs want debt wise. But the repubs have to take away the second amendment.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by 46ACE

 

In fact, on centralized power, Alex had the idea that state armes could be used to fight other state armies if need be and we didnt need a federal army. This was on the issues of standing fed armies. Most were afraid of standing federal armies in the post war years.

I need to correct this....Hamilton did indeed believe we should have a well trained standing army. He also believed that without a real army we would not have won the war.

reply to post by TaxpayersUnleashed



This is not going to happen.

Obama and our Government is under control of The Elites through the U.N.....

The U.N. made us invade Libya, remember ???

Google how the U.N. feels about private gun ownership!

This bears repeating again:

Gun control isn't about guns....It's about CONTROL.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by OldCorp



Our main fear nowdays should be outside powers getting control of our armies somehow to use them against us.

Or our leaders giving way to outside powers to force them to suspend our gun rights.

Reply to post by kro32

Check the link in my Aug. You are wrong.

Also, the word "arms" is all inclusive.

And SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Pretty basic English there.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Until I see any of you fighting for your right to nuclear weapons, it all seems like a lot of empty talk left over from a king that could not mow down your house.

If only Osama had a gun he could have fought off the US government.

Reply to post by Kitilani

I'm sorry. Does a regular army member have access to nuclear weapons?

You really should read up on the second amendment before trying to throw red herrings out.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


So, you are saying there are limits to the second amendment?

I bet you'd just LOVE communist China, commie.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Kitilani

 

I'm sorry. Does a regular army member have access to nuclear weapons?

No because there are actually limits on the 2nd.

You really should read up on the second amendment before trying to throw red herrings out.

I should?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by kro32

 

Check the link in my Aug. You are wrong.

Also, the word "arms" is all inclusive.

And SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Pretty basic English there.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED are you having a hard time understanding? You put it out there. I guess you either do not actually believe it or do not actually understand it. I cannot wait to find out which.

Maybe you were confused by your own use of the phrase "all inclusive."