The Right To Bear Arms & The Spirit of Law (Registration is Counter to the Purpose of the Right)!?!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I admit I don't have a good plan, not that smart. I come from a family with a history of mental illness. We, our family, have made sure certain family members are not turned out on the public. I am just trying to warn you. Most mentally ill cannot get the counseling they need because of money.

reply to post by Mike215


you are not even close.
the name of this site is subtitled deny ignorance.
i will ignore your comments and redirect you to the fact
that the 2nd amendment is to prevent enemies both foreign
and domestic from possession of our rights.

reply to post by MOMof3


you are absolutely correct for as short as your memory is.
Thorazine AND PSYCHE MEDS CLEANED OUT THE INSTITUTIONS AND SANITARIUMS
.

reply to post by slugger9787


Would you like to revisit this topic again? I warned you all that crazy people should not have access to guns. Now you are going to lose big time.

You would be surprised at the number of Sherrifs, etc that don't believe in gun registration. I'm sure in Metro areas it is not so but in rural America it is the mindset of quite a few. Rural America is full of hunters and it is a favorite passtime for many. Guns are thought of more as tools than instruments of destruction. They fill their freezers every year and save a lot of money by doing so. I have never met anyone that claimed they owned a gun to protect themselves from the government. I know our forefathers said it but it is not a prevelant mindset for ownership of a gun. I think everyone knows that the military owns bigger and better guns, plus blackhawk helicopters etc. The citizenry has no real chance of taking over the government by force no matter how many guns they own. Home protection and hunting are the primary reason for owning a gun in America.

What part of "shall not be infringed" isnt understood? How cant there even be debate on this area in a court room?

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Mike215
When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, firearms were very primitive and most of the time did not work. If the AK47 assault rifle was around at that time, I doubt that they would been so generous with that amendment. I would think that their biggest fear is that the Indians would get them and such a nightmare would have made an amendment where getting and holding arms would be more difficult.

Two things to remember here. First the 2nd wasnt looking at the weapon but the right of groups of men to bear them under certain conditions and thus "to keep" unto thier own persons was then concomitant.

Also apparent is the reality, as far as the tactical value of the weapons called "arms",that they were certainly talking about current firearm technology. Demanding that the people cannot keep assult arms is the same as demanding they fight with weapons made for hunting game, much of which show little advance since 1776. Taking away a tactical equivalency in personal arms from the people is a clear degree of subjugation considering what it would mean if the people in the modern era had to present themselves on the field with shotguns and modern muzzel loaders. A court that was "jealous for the right of the people" would never allow an assult weapons ban. But a court seeking to define the state position as paramount would.

What you said. In addition, going by that logic, then the first amendment would not apply to radio, TV, computers, internet, or typrewriters.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Yea well we can be sure that many would just love it if we had to send quill written letters to each other! And carrier pigeon! Durring the right event be sure that the cell phones and net would go down. Better keep a good CB raidio on hand.