Amendment 2: - Right to Bear Arms DAMN RIGHT! Get over it!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


The police will agree because they want you to rely on their guns!

If everybody had guns people would be safer.No wannabe gangsta would try and steal an old lady's purse knowing she could be packin a 45 lol.

Anybody who has a violent past or is a violent person shouldn't have guns period!

They don't want people having guns because they don't want to be shot when they invade your house for some little grow op you might have or because you sell a little weed!But it's okay to drink though!Bottoms up people!..."But no weed"!It's okay to take all the pills the government gives you,it's okay to drink any alcoholic beverage,it's okay to smoke cigarettes(which is an addictive drug by the way)

"Only buy our drugs and alcohol"-Government

The Government really knows how to cut out the competition!

There's murderers,rapists,"terrorists" and they're worried about a little bit of pot?

Why did I start talking about weed?Because the laws don't make sense!The laws seem to work in the criminals favor.And the government's moves are suspiciously gangster!Think about why weed is illegal.Because they know we can grow weed just as good if not better than the government.But yet it's okay for the government to grow it and prescribe it to people?If it's so bad for you then why do you prescribe it to people?

There's gangs,"terrorists",murderers out there and we can't have guns to protect ourselves?It's these type of things that make the government look like gangsters!

Take our guns away??Up yours!

reply to post by GodIsPissed

Why did I start talking about weed?Because the laws don't make sense!

Laws always make sense, legislation rarely does. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. If it is rooted in law, that legislation is somehow protecting the rights of individuals. If legislation is not doing this, it is not law.

Here's the problem, and what tends to lead to some confusion. Legislation doesn't have to be law in order to be valid. Taxes are not law, but can certainly be valid acts of legislation. Voting registration is not law but can be valid legislation.

It is important, if we are to beat the priest class lawyer set at their own game, to learn to distinguish between law and legislation.

Wow the ignorance by some on this thread is astounding. The Second Amendment or the bill of rights do not grant any rights. They merely illustrate and reiterate some of those rights as a warning to government not to violate those rights. Those rights existed long before pen was put to paper and always will exist. They are predicated on mans willingness to fight and protect those rights.

I don't care if you think I should not have a gun it's none of your damn business. I have them because it is my right and if you think I shouldn't keep it yourself. Or you can come try and take them. I may oblige you but you'll get them a piece at a time a few inches at a time.

As long as I am not harming anyone else it's none of your damn business what I do or what I own. If you don't understand that then you are mentally deficient. Idiots who think banning guns will prevent people from having them are beyond stupid even though they see that drug prohibition has utterly failed at preventing people from having drugs. Why in the world they think banning guns would prevent people from having them leaves nothing but utter retardation as the only explanation for such ridiculous notions.

I'm 99.99999999999% sure that the drafters of the constitution never foresaw that we'd be living in this Jerry Springeresque land that we do now. If they had any idea of some of the boneheads out there with deadly weapons they might have thought twice about the right to bear arms.
Notice the word "some", some does not mean "all", thankyouverymuch.

Originally posted by Littletruthseeker
I'm 99.99999999999% sure that the drafters of the constitution never foresaw that we'd be living in this Jerry Springeresque land that we do now. If they had any idea of some of the boneheads out there with deadly weapons they might have thought twice about the right to bear arms.
Notice the word "some", some does not mean "all", thankyouverymuch.

Your 99.999999999% sure because you have never bothered to read what the Framers of the Constitution had to say about the Second Amendment. Hell, it is pretty clear you haven't even bothered to read the numerous posts in this thread where a few have quoted these Framers. Nope, instead you just sat around and thought about this really, really, really hard - kind of like a model does when they're stuck in chair for hours having their hair done and make up done for a photo shoot - and concluded, without the benefit of any real research, that the Framers couldn't foresee the consequences of a well armed populace.

Sigh.

reply to post by Littletruthseeker


Are you saying there were no murderers or psychopaths, prior to September 17, 1787? I think you are not giving the framers enough credit.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

From page 13 and your talk to the former Va. Prosecuter.

Legal....pertaining to the form of law...the outward form..appearances/form

Lawful..pertaining to the substance of law. What the law was intended to do

Legal and lawful are not the same thing.

See Blacks Law Dictionary.

I understand the same concept whenever I hear a leader talk about "The Colour of Law." What sophisticated nonsense. What is wrong with the law ..that we must switch to the Colour of Law. This is form...not substance. Legal and not Lawful. More Gnostic wiseman doubletalk.

My radar goes up immediately when I hear People talk about legal and lawful. Colur of law verses law.


Legal is what we have for money now days...counterfeit token currency.

Lawful is what we used to have in silver and gold and real copper coin. Substance. Today we only have the cheap counterfeit form of money. This is legal verses Lawful.

There is such a thing as a lawful tender verses legal tender. Also such a thing as Lawful money.
Just read the fine print on some of the olde notes issued by the Fed.

Agree with some of the other posters about VA Tech..this was a gun free zone.

When those guys robbed me at gunpoint in front of my home...they stated clearly three times to be careful about a gun...they were afraid of me having a gun. Astonishing!!! They were in the wrong line of work and in the wrong state. They need to be doing this up north in the states where people are severely restricted from having guns.


Thanks,
Orangetom

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

"Come and take them"

Americans will only be disarmed through mandatory firearms confiscations. Good luck to anyone brave enough to try and go door to door in the U.S. confiscating firearms. I feel really bad for any politicians who would try and enact this lul.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


As always, love your posts. I really do wish more people would read books like Thomas Paines, Common Sense and Rights of Man, Frederic Bastiats, The Law, and another great one, Founding Fathers and Secret Societies. The last is one of my favorites as it explains in very good detail who the founders looked up to and conversed with and how they set about the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill fo Rights along with some good debates and discussion. But alas, people will never understand property rights and their own existence. How governments came to be and who really has the control and what "law" really is.

Law is merely natural common sense. The old saying of do unto others apllies always. Keep up the great posts!!

reply to post by daddio


I didn't mean to ignore your last post, and had in fact gone to look at Title 42 and its declarations of property, but sometimes I have a hard time finding the time to do all the research necessary to fashion an appropriate reply, and that is what happened to me yesterday. I would like to, however, when I get the chance, reply that post of yours.

Thanks for bringing up the books you have in this most recent post, particularly Bastiat's The Law. You are right, if more people would read this stuff, you and I wouldn't have to work so hard here in defending liberty, and explaining the difference between legislation and law.

Always nice to see you, brother.

I have a copy of Bastiat's The Law in my private collection. I highly recommend it.

I also keep Black's Law Dictionary around for the occasional reference along with a good dictionary.

It is interesting to me how many people out here not only know little history but also know little in vocabulary such as the terms legal and lawful and how far they extend out to our daily lives.

I have discerned that there are so many people out here..male and female both who not only do not know the basis of law or our Constitution...but also have confused their "Feelings" with what is right and just. This is a very very poor trade off.

I am, often want to say that today's public education is become a movie and television education majoring in "Feelings." Little real thinking going on and even less real information's given ..particularly history. When education deteriorates so far..it becomes now..."Feelings " which are now the correct yardstick by which to measure reality. This breeds a generation of easily controllable, malleable, predictable, guaranteed voters. Exactly what is needed by a predatory political process...which also finances public education.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by hawkiye
Wow the ignorance by some on this thread is astounding. The Second Amendment or the bill of rights do not grant any rights. They merely illustrate and reiterate some of those rights as a warning to government not to violate those rights. Those rights existed long before pen was put to paper and always will exist. They are predicated on mans willingness to fight and protect those rights.

In a very real legal way the bill of rights is as good as law. I respectfully disagree that they are illustrations or reinterations but understand what you mean here. They are predicated on the idea that the people have rights that cannot be alienated from them by lesser laws or edicts put forth by any body of power....even the legislature.

The resent musings coming out of the UN about americas gun amendment to its consitution can only be seen as an effort to seperate americans from thier rights as part of the UNs overall designs to force a larger will on the US. However the UN has no legal standing to even consider such a thing. The american public should see all movement in this area as a subterfuge.

Originally posted by neo96
lets take florida for instance pull a gun you get 10 years fire a gun you get 20 and thats not even killing anyone.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by wasco2

 

so what is not accurate about that?

You don't think it pertinent and deserving of mention that the law applies to firearm use in the commission of a crime?

Originally posted by neo96
there is a thread on here about a florida father who pulled out a gun and fired it because his daughter was being beaten by her bf.

the father never aimed at the bf but did fire it and now he is spendign 20 years in prison.

The boyfriend disputes the father's version of events. He says he punched the wall at an earlier date and was leaving the residence when the father fired. The bullet went close enough to nick the strap of a bag the boy was carrying. Close enough where a reasonable person might believe the father was really shooting at the boy. If the boy's version of events is true, as the jury believed, the father wasn't defending anyone and WAS guilty of aggravated assault.

At any rate the story is good reason to examine mandatory sentencing laws. The 10-20-Life mandatory sentence was a reaction to liberal judges giving violent criminals what amounted to a slap on the wrist but just like zero-tolerance policies in schools it occasionally has exremely unfair and nonsensical results.

reply to post by ispyed


any numbers that you can find on the number of gun related deaths are inherently skewed. It contains both gun related deaths that are accidents, illegal and legal in nature. I'll admit any number that contains accidents is too high however the majority of those gun related deaths/crimes are typically with illegally obtained firearms. So it doesn't matter how much the 2nd is regulated or how much of our rights are destroyed. Illegal arms purchases lead to illegal gun related deaths. I think the number of legally obtained guns and gun related deaths are what keep that number so low.

In reality the cops are useless when you have someone breaking into your house or robbing you at gunpoint and you do have the right to defend yourself using any means available. I'd rather it be a shotgun than a knife.

My newest exercise of my 2nd Amendment rights:

Walther PPK/S, German made, .380ACP
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5a0fe21da10e.jpg[/atsimg]

Isn't it cute? Now I can play a senior citizen James Bond.

Why? Because I wanted it and the US Constitution and the state of Florida said I could have it.

Originally posted by wasco2
Why? Because I wanted it and the US Constitution and the state of Florida said I could have it.

Correction, if I may...
The Constitution says the government shall not infringe on your purchasing and possessing that fine weapon. It doesn't say what you can or cannot do.

Anyway, I once had a Walther TPH, .22 I carried in an ankle holster. It came out of the holster, when I wrecked my motorcycle, and bounced down the highway. A friend picked up the pieces of the magazine and, when I recovered, I put it back together and it still shot straight.

reply to post by WTFover


Isn't this really quibbling about semantics. You're right, the 2nd Amendment really says, "the government can't tell me I can't have it". I just liked what I wrote better and wanted to show off my new little friend. I may even go shoot it this weekend.

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by WTFover

 

Isn't this really quibbling about semantics. You're right, the 2nd Amendment really says, "the government can't tell me I can't have it". I just liked what I wrote better and wanted to show off my new little friend. I may even go shoot it this weekend.

'

No, WTFover is not quibbling over semantics. He is correctly pointing out that your natural and unalienable right to keep and bear arms was not granted to you by a legislative act.

Somewhere there is a law (I hope this is the proper term) that says I cannot have a firearm. But hey, I paid my debt to society. Rather extensive debt for the situation. Uh, I feel ripped off here.

But who cares anyways. Next thing you know DHS will be driving by, or parking the satellite overhead for a few minutes longer.......claiming I am ranting government hatred and they have the warrant to proove it. lol.

It looks like mom might be getting a pistol for christmas

Dislaimer: Well you know, the money to go and purchase it herself (and keep it) anyways

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It may be a natural right but governments love to take away rights whenever they can. Ask the Canadians, the British, the Australians, and if any are still around ask pre-WWII Germans. Fact is telling a gubmint bureaucrat, "I have an inalienable right to.....", is kind of like waving a red flag at a bull. He gets right pissy about it and sets to trying to prove the only rights you have are those allowed you by government.