What does the right to bear arms mean? "By Ben Swan"

www.fox19.com..."he-second-amendment
www.fox19.com...
Lets see what the people who swore by Ben Swan about Ron Paul.Think about his 2nd admendment stance.I for one believe he hits the nail on the head.It has nothing to do with crime rates.It is about your rights as a sovereign citizen not bound by the actions of others. Watch both videos.

We don't need less guns we need more journalists like Ben Swann.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


Hard to argue with the man.

"Just the facts ma am"

There is something to be said about living in the past. You don't need to abolish anything, just reevaluate it for modern times. This seems rational and logical to me. However both sides of the discussion have made the the issue so polarized.

Originally posted by MDDoxs

There is something to be said about living in the past. You don't need to abolish anything, just reevaluate it for modern times. This seems rational and logical to me. However both sides of the discussion have made the the issue so polarized.

Why stop reevaulating at the second admendment?There is lot's of crime maybe we should remove 5th admendment also and suspend Habeas corpus,if we do that.We might as well get rid of the 1st admendment.Oh hell that whole thing was written 200 years ago let's just throw the whole thing out.Those old guys had no idea what they were talking about.Except that this is what our country and freedoms were founded on!

My simple understanding is that if I can "bear" it, that I have the right to. Let me rephrase it for more clarification. If I can carry it, then I have the right to carry it. It is a right, not a privilege.

100%
we are supposed
to be armed to match force

4 all the d bags
that like to spout
"when it was written
they were talking about
musket's"

wrong...
its about matching force
with those who may oppose

now where do i
get my global hawk

"Shall not be infringed" means that it shall not be restricted or taken away. This has already been broken by Congress and the SCOTUS with the National Firearms Act and others similar bills.

reply to post by MrBigDave


You know with the opinion given so straight foward from Mr. Swan.Where are all the counter opinions on this thread?

Could it be with the way Mr. Swan presented his opinion (facts) it is kind of hard to argure with?

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Its hard to argue sound logic and truth. When your dealing with ignorant people, you kind of have to educate them without them feeling schooled. People feel schooled they get on a defensive and start to argue.

reply to post by MrBigDave

Agree, that is why in the face of sound logic.
People will ignore the logic.To wait for ideas that fit their opinions.

Well either 2 things are going to happen in this thread.

1. The anti-gun crowd are going to avoid it like a leper.
2. They will post ignoring everything said in the videos and keep spewing the same lines.

reply to post by Carreau

Not one responce from anti-gun crowd.So you sir are correct with the first prediction.

S&F who needs them.It is better to give a point that won't be contested.

Discussed recently here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and likely elsewhere.

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked thread.
Thanks

**Thread Closed**


for future reference:

We Have A New Search Engine--Please Use It!