This just in from NRA-ILA

[nogods]

As far as "convoluted language" regarding the second amendment, the framers chose to not qualify the "right to keep and bear arms" that they so rightly guaranteed against infringement. Any later qualification or limitation of that right is, by definition, an infringement.

Are biological and nuclear weapons protected by the right to bear arms?

Can I possess such weapons anywhere at anytime without restriction?

Is a jaguar trained to guard me a weapon covered by the right to bear arms? Can i take my jaguar into the courthouse? Can i bring my nuclear and biological weapons into the Capitol building? If not, wouldn't that be an infringement of the right to bear arms?

[6shootercarry]

Are biological and nuclear weapons protected by the right to bear arms?

Can I possess such weapons anywhere at anytime without restriction?

Is a jaguar trained to guard me a weapon covered by the right to bear arms? Can i take my jaguar into the courthouse? Can i bring my nuclear and biological weapons into the Capitol building? If not, wouldn't that be an infringement of the right to bear arms?

The answer to all the questions; YES... Again we the people have become adjusted to the compromise. Some of us would rather not continue...

With the right comes responsibility. If the "Right" is abused by those who chose to do wrong, they shall expect to be struck down by those who will do right. You can't go around trying to restrict and regulate by the premise "people may do harm with it". Guess what? They will.

Regulating and restricting the "Right" has never had an effect on the criminals who choose to do wrong. Why do the bleeding heart liberals believe it ever will? So infringement on my "Right" to carry a gun when and where I choose for the purpose of self defense helps me in what way?

If the supreme court upheld the ruling that local government and law enforcement has no duty to protect you from criminals and madmen, they should have no issue with anyone choosing to protect themselves and loved ones by any means they choose. Be it a jaguar or

a Cheetah.


Right, n; any claim, title, etc., that is morally just or legally granted as allowable or due to a person
that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.
Natural: rights that can neither be bestowed by a government nor abrogated by it, such as rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

No change in assessment...

[buddy]

The answer to all the questions; YES... Again we the people have become adjusted to the compromise. Some of us would rather not continue...

With the right comes responsibility. If the "Right" is abused by those who chose to do wrong, they shall expect to be struck down by those who will do right. You can't go around trying to restrict and regulate by the premise "people may do harm with it". Guess what? They will.

Regulating and restricting the "Right" has never had an effect on the criminals who choose to do wrong. Why do the bleeding heart liberals believe it ever will? So infringement on my "Right" to carry a gun when and where I choose for the purpose of self defense helps me in what way?

If the supreme court upheld the ruling that local government and law enforcement has no duty to protect you from criminals and madmen, they should have no issue with anyone choosing to protect themselves and loved ones by any means they choose. Be it a jaguar or

a Cheetah.


Right, n; any claim, title, etc., that is morally just or legally granted as allowable or due to a person
that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.
Natural: rights that can neither be bestowed by a government nor abrogated by it, such as rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

No change in assessment...

So what laws should stay in place? Obviously none according to you. Was it compromise to not allow a person to scream "fire" in a crowded theater? Burning the flag? Why not allow people to burn the flag? The law does not stop those who wish to do it. I assume you wish to allow flag burning. How about slander? Just allow citizens to strike down those who they decide have slandered them? We have natural rights to self defense and free speech. I agree, if that is what you are saying. Would you allow infringement on flag burning and slander? How about sedition? Burning your draft card in the 60's?


Oh, yeah, if the "right" is abused by those who do wrong, they can be ... blah blah blah.
Sounds like a libertarian anarchist to me. There is a reason Rand hated libertarians.

[Bohemian]

So what laws should stay in place? Obviously none according to you. Was it compromise to not allow a person to scream "fire" in a crowded theater? Burning the flag? Why not allow people to burn the flag? The law does not stop those who wish to do it. I assume you wish to allow flag burning. How about slander? Just allow citizens to strike down those who they decide have slandered them? We have natural rights to self defense and free speech. I agree, if that is what you are saying. Would you allow infringement on flag burning and slander? How about sedition? Burning your draft card in the 60's?


Oh, yeah, if the "right" is abused by those who do wrong, they can be ... blah blah blah.
Sounds like a libertarian anarchist to me. There is a reason Rand hated libertarians.

You are spewing the same crap from the anti's playbook...
Educate yourself man...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...

Once again it needs to be reiterated...
Without the Unabridged Second Amendment WE THE PEOPLE have no effective way to resist/replace a tyrannical government...

We have plenty of reasonable laws on the books to deal with somebody that murders somebody during the course of a robbery; that do not prohibit somebody from actually being able to carry something to defend themselves with...

While we have a plethora of unconstitutional superfluous laws that define what, when and where you have the ability to defend your life and that of your friends, family, neighbors etc...

I am sure nobody is against consequences for using the Unabridged Second Amendment in a way that is not consistent with the framers intent of protecting said preexisting right to defend yourselves, your family, neighbors etc., from all enemies foreign and domestic, using equal or greater force than may be brought against us; including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government...

Watts & Rodney King and other LA riots and Hurricane Katrina were perfect examples of in recent history where people's previously compromised rights prevented them from defending themselves from armed gangs of 10-30 individuals armed with the very weapons they were prohibited from owning...

Here's a scenario for you... say for example the country collapses from Obama & Company's Socialist Utopia; and a truck load of individuals have a pretty good idea that you have some food and water and or women in your place...
They decide that a reasonable course of action is to drive that pickup/suv through your front door... (something that is currently being done on a daily basis in Mexico and Greece just to name two)
AND you see them coming...
What do you think your chances are of stopping them with your hunting rifle or handgun or shotgun are?
ZIP, ZERO, NATTA...

Now IF you were able to actually possess a hand-held rocket launcher such as a Law/Rpg etc., it would be like shooting fish in a barrel...
Same thing if a tyrannical government decided to send the U.N.'s Spetsnaz to confiscate your guns & knives because you are a registered firearm owner that has participated in at least one NICS check, is a holder of a CCW/CCP or related Concealed Firearms Permit...
Or have participated in any of the current required compromises on The Unabridged Second Amendment to allow you to actually exercise your pre-existing right....
Moreover, said tyrannical government has deemed it for the public good that nobody will be armed any longer...

Dictatorship/President for life, suspension of civil rights sound familiar?
Weimar Republic?, Greece? Europe? Hugo Chavez?
How about the tenets of Socialism, Marxism, Communism that are all embraced by those that have previously compromised our rights away...

[buddy]

You are spewing the same crap from the anti's playbook...
Educate yourself man...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...

Once again it needs to be reiterated...
Without the Unabridged Second Amendment WE THE PEOPLE have no effective way to resist/replace a tyrannical government...

We have plenty of reasonable laws on the books to deal with somebody that murders somebody during the course of a robbery; that do not prohibit somebody from actually being able to carry something to defend themselves with...

While we have a plethora of unconstitutional superfluous laws that define what, when and where you have the ability to defend your life and that of your friends, family, neighbors etc...

I am sure nobody is against consequences for using the Unabridged Second Amendment in a way that is not consistent with the framers intent of protecting said preexisting right to defend yourselves, your family, neighbors etc., from all enemies foreign and domestic, using equal or greater force than may be brought against us; including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government...

Watts & Rodney King and other LA riots and Hurricane Katrina were perfect examples of in recent history where people's previously compromised rights prevented them from defending themselves from armed gangs of 10-30 individuals armed with the very weapons they were prohibited from owning...

Here's a scenario for you... say for example the country collapses from Obama & Company's Socialist Utopia; and a truck load of individuals have a pretty good idea that you have some food and water and or women in your place...
They decide that a reasonable course of action is to drive that pickup/suv through your front door... (something that is currently being done on a daily basis in Mexico and Greece just to name two)
AND you see them coming...
What do you think your chances are of stopping them with your hunting rifle or handgun or shotgun are?
ZIP, ZERO, NATTA...

Now IF you were able to actually possess a hand-held rocket launcher such as a Law/Rpg etc., it would be like shooting fish in a barrel...
Same thing if a tyrannical government decided to send the U.N.'s Spetsnaz to confiscate your guns & knives because you are a registered firearm owner that has participated in at least one NICS check, is a holder of a CCW/CCP or related Concealed Firearms Permit...
Or have participated in any of the current required compromises on The Unabridged Second Amendment to allow you to actually exercise your pre-existing right....
Moreover, said tyrannical government has deemed it for the public good that nobody will be armed any longer...

Dictatorship/President for life, suspension of civil rights sound familiar?
Weimar Republic?, Greece? Europe? Hugo Chavez?
How about the tenets of Socialism, Marxism, Communism that are all embraced by those that have previously compromised our rights away...

How about answering my questions instead of insulting me?
As far as your scenarios, I do not see them coming in my lifetime. Obama will be on his way out soon, and I really don't sit around thinking the UN is going to confiscate my guns. But I know from your postings you believe this to be a possibility so have at it.

You guys who are against compromise always pick out the worst examples, like California, which was never a compromise. Those people just hate guns, freedom and liberty and get what they deserve for voting people like Gov Brown into office. How come you never look at compromises that work, like, I don't know, the us constitution? It took weeks if not months of compromise and debate to get it passed.

You and I agree Katrina and the gun confiscation was a disgrace and a direct violation of the 2nd amendment. I would even go so far as to defend anyone who used phsyical force to defend themselves from the gun grabbers in that case. As a Vegas resident, I am sure you are aware of our sheriffs belief for having blue cards, that it could aid in confiscation in the event of big trouble like katrina, or a terrorist attack. I am sure we can agree that this should be resisted with every fiber of our being. However, I do not equate that resistance with saying that I can own a nuke. And if some fool comes into my office with a Jaguar on a leash and says it is for self defense, I can assure you both the Jag and the fool who claims it is an "arm" would meet an unhappy demise.

[Bohemian]

How about answering my questions instead of insulting me?
As far as your scenarios, I do not see them coming in my lifetime. Obama will be on his way out soon, and I really don't sit around thinking the UN is going to confiscate my guns. But I know from your postings you believe this to be a possibility so have at it.

You guys who are against compromise always pick out the worst examples, like California, which was never a compromise. Those people just hate guns, freedom and liberty and get what they deserve for voting people like Gov Brown into office. How come you never look at compromises that work, like, I don't know, the us constitution? It took weeks if not months of compromise and debate to get it passed.

You and I agree Katrina and the gun confiscation was a disgrace and a direct violation of the 2nd amendment. I would even go so far as to defend anyone who used phsyical force to defend themselves from the gun grabbers in that case. As a Vegas resident, I am sure you are aware of our sheriffs belief for having blue cards, that it could aid in confiscation in the event of big trouble like katrina, or a terrorist attack. I am sure we can agree that this should be resisted with every fiber of our being. However, I do not equate that resistance with saying that I can own a nuke. And if some fool comes into my office with a Jaguar on a leash and says it is for self defense, I can assure you both the Jag and the fool who claims it is an "arm" would meet an unhappy demise.

Again, you fail to have a grasp or understanding of the history of this country, not the least of which being the events mentioned by yourself in regards to California...
In short, the people in California were victims of FEDERAL & STATE level Second Amendment Compromises...

Constitutional Compromise?
Ever hear of the Federalist Papers?

The Unabridged Second Amendment was the result of that so-called compromise you are referring to...
They agreed in the most unambiguous terms possible that are still as applicable then as now...
..."Shall Not Be Infringed" PERIOD...

Your questions have been answered over & over, apparently you have either not read them or are incapable of comprehending them...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...
IF you are so thin-skinned as to take what I or anybody else herein have said as a insult than so-be-it...
IF you can at least try to be more open-minded you will find it as a statement of fact...

In the real-world we do not deal with ideal scenarios, we deal with what-if, real-world scenarios...
both in business & the military, notwithstanding our personal lives...

And the things you think cannot happen, in the history of the world have happened over & over and over again, due to the ignorance and the naiveté of the poor souls whom said the same thing you are now...

Keep siding with the Liberals Buddy... see what it gets you...

There are plenty of private companies, held by private individuals whom own nuclear and fissionable materials, etc., in this country that in itself is not prohibited under current law...

The ludicrous Nuclear issue you and the liberals continually mention aside...
The problem is, it is currently illegal to construct or possess any kind of device that fires grenades, rockets, explosives of any type or any explosive device other than dynamite; by permit...

I can own a tank or a f18 if I have the money to pay for it; but I can only possess inert disabled projectiles to arm them with...
I personally don't have a desire to have either one, but I feel I have the right too...
A portable rocket launcher (Rpg/Law), and or 203 attachment(s) to black rifle(s) of choice, I.E.D.'s and full auto machine guns are far more practical in my view for civilians, including but not limited to retired military...

As far as the tanks and f18's etc., goes I think citizens militias should have a number of those fully armed; under their control outside of any police, military, national guard etc., and be well-trained as possible to use said armament should the need arise for the replacement/resistance of a tyrannical government...

As the framers clearly delineated...

All of which have been compromised away in my lifetime...

"...Whenever Governments mean to invade
the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia..." - Elbridge Gerry 1788/1789

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe 1788/1789

The last two quotes occured during the debates of adding Second Amendment and its wording to the current bill of rights...

I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

[6shootercarry]

Again, you fail to have a grasp or understanding of the history of this country, not the least of which being the events mentioned by yourself in regards to California...
In short, the people in California were victims of FEDERAL & STATE level Second Amendment Compromises...

Constitutional Compromise?
Ever hear of the Federalist Papers?

The Unabridged Second Amendment was the result of that so-called compromise you are referring to...
They agreed in the most unambiguous terms possible that are still as applicable then as now...
..."Shall Not Be Infringed" PERIOD...

Your questions have been answered over & over, apparently you have either not read them or are incapable of comprehending them...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...
IF you are so thin-skinned as to take what I or anybody else herein have said as a insult than so-be-it...
IF you can at least try to be more open-minded you will find it as a statement of fact...

In the real-world we do not deal with ideal scenarios, we deal with what-if, real-world scenarios...
both in business & the military, notwithstanding our personal lives...

And the things you think cannot happen, in the history of the world have happened over & over and over again, due to the ignorance and the naiveté of the poor souls whom said the same thing you are now...

Keep siding with the Liberals Buddy... see what it gets you...

There are plenty of private companies, held by private individuals whom own nuclear and fissionable materials, etc., in this country that in itself is not prohibited under current law...

The ludicrous Nuclear issue you and the liberals continually mention aside...
The problem is, it is currently illegal to construct or possess any kind of device that fires grenades, rockets, explosives of any type or any explosive device other than dynamite; by permit...

I can own a tank or a f18 if I have the money to pay for it; but I can only possess inert disabled projectiles to arm them with...
I personally don't have a desire to have either one, but I feel I have the right too...
A portable rocket launcher (Rpg/Law), and or 203 attachment(s) to black rifle(s) of choice, I.E.D.'s and full auto machine guns are far more practical in my view for civilians, including but not limited to retired military...

As far as the tanks and f18's etc., goes I think citizens militias should have a number of those fully armed; under their control outside of any police, military, national guard etc., and be well-trained as possible to use said armament should the need arise for the replacement/resistance of a tyrannical government...

As the framers clearly delineated...

All of which have been compromised away in my lifetime...

"...Whenever Governments mean to invade
the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia..." - Elbridge Gerry 1788/1789

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe 1788/1789

The last two quotes occured during the debates of adding Second Amendment and its wording to the current bill of rights...

I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

I was going to go down the same road Bo, but then thought "why answer the same question in 6 different ways".

It appears to me, not to be a matter of unclear answers or insults, but a matter of comprehension.

I should have indicated I was writing this to buddy. edit 11/05/2010...
You asked questions and were provided with candid and honest answers along with supporting arguments. If you disagree with the information provided or the opinions provided simply state that fact and attend to your business. If compromise is your answer to the question simply state that and stand your ground.

The exercise here was to indicate, describe, and define what it is you are willing to compromise. Understand what the "Right" is before being too willing to compromise it. Truth be told I was in the darkness for a time. I'm sure Bohemian will attest to that. This information and the manner in which it is presented should be interpreted as admonishment not insult...

ad·mon·ish
vt \ad-ˈmä-nish\
Definition of ADMONISH
1
a : to indicate duties or obligations to
b : to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner
2 : to give friendly earnest advice or encouragement to

In short I agree to disagree if that is to be your course of action. What say you?

[buddy]

Again, you fail to have a grasp or understanding of the history of this country, not the least of which being the events mentioned by yourself in regards to California...
In short, the people in California were victims of FEDERAL & STATE level Second Amendment Compromises...

Constitutional Compromise?
Ever hear of the Federalist Papers?

The Unabridged Second Amendment was the result of that so-called compromise you are referring to...
They agreed in the most unambiguous terms possible that are still as applicable then as now...
..."Shall Not Be Infringed" PERIOD...

Your questions have been answered over & over, apparently you have either not read them or are incapable of comprehending them...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...
IF you are so thin-skinned as to take what I or anybody else herein have said as a insult than so-be-it...
IF you can at least try to be more open-minded you will find it as a statement of fact...

In the real-world we do not deal with ideal scenarios, we deal with what-if, real-world scenarios...
both in business & the military, notwithstanding our personal lives...

And the things you think cannot happen, in the history of the world have happened over & over and over again, due to the ignorance and the naiveté of the poor souls whom said the same thing you are now...

Keep siding with the Liberals Buddy... see what it gets you...

There are plenty of private companies, held by private individuals whom own nuclear and fissionable materials, etc., in this country that in itself is not prohibited under current law...

The ludicrous Nuclear issue you and the liberals continually mention aside...
The problem is, it is currently illegal to construct or possess any kind of device that fires grenades, rockets, explosives of any type or any explosive device other than dynamite; by permit...

I can own a tank or a f18 if I have the money to pay for it; but I can only possess inert disabled projectiles to arm them with...
I personally don't have a desire to have either one, but I feel I have the right too...
A portable rocket launcher (Rpg/Law), and or 203 attachment(s) to black rifle(s) of choice, I.E.D.'s and full auto machine guns are far more practical in my view for civilians, including but not limited to retired military...

As far as the tanks and f18's etc., goes I think citizens militias should have a number of those fully armed; under their control outside of any police, military, national guard etc., and be well-trained as possible to use said armament should the need arise for the replacement/resistance of a tyrannical government...

As the framers clearly delineated...

All of which have been compromised away in my lifetime...

"...Whenever Governments mean to invade
the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia..." - Elbridge Gerry 1788/1789

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe 1788/1789

The last two quotes occured during the debates of adding Second Amendment and its wording to the current bill of rights...

I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

Not sure why you would say I am thin skinned. Never said I was hurt or offended. Just pointed out something in the context of questions not being answered. Most on another, similar thread. But if you wish to say I am thin skinned and then denounce me for it, fine. Have at it.
I believe, as has been stated here, rights have to be defined. The right to bear arms must be defined as does the right to free speech.
I guess if I don't believe the right to keep and bear arms applies to military weapons like nukes, or to a jaguar, I am a liberal. If you want to believe that, go ahead. I guess if I don't believe that the UN is coming to take away our arms with special forces, I am a liberal. I thought they came in the 90's when Clinton was president and they were hiding in the woods, just waiting. I guess if I don't think a wild mountain cat walking besides me qualifies as "arms" and should not be allowed I am a liberal.

Final question, since I posted it on another thread...if we can define the right to free speech, why can we not apply the right to keep and bear arms in the same manner? The right to free speech does not say "except if you ..." It simply says the right to free speech shall not be abridged.

[XDM Daniel]

We are not happy with the NRA in Utah. They endorsed a piece of crap liberal who anytime I have written him about a gun issue responds with such bull crap it makes me sick. If you check with Gun Owners of America they got it right... They gave the liberal Jim Matheson a C, and gave the true gun supporter Morgan Philpot an A. Won't be giving anymore of my hard earned $'s to the NRA!

[Bohemian]

Not sure why you would say I am thin skinned. Never said I was hurt or offended. Just pointed out something in the context of questions not being answered. Most on another, similar thread. But if you wish to say I am thin skinned and then denounce me for it, fine. Have at it.
I believe, as has been stated here, rights have to be defined. The right to bear arms must be defined as does the right to free speech.
I guess if I don't believe the right to keep and bear arms applies to military weapons like nukes, or to a jaguar, I am a liberal. If you want to believe that, go ahead. I guess if I don't believe that the UN is coming to take away our arms with special forces, I am a liberal. I thought they came in the 90's when Clinton was president and they were hiding in the woods, just waiting. I guess if I don't think a wild mountain cat walking besides me qualifies as "arms" and should not be allowed I am a liberal.

Final question, since I posted it on another thread...if we can define the right to free speech, why can we not apply the right to keep and bear arms in the same manner? The right to free speech does not say "except if you ..." It simply says the right to free speech shall not be abridged.

IT means what it says no more not less, regardless of what SCOTUS/Congress unconstitutionally attempts to pervert it to...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither are subject to any further interpretation