An invitation to Axeanda45 (+ everyone else) - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: An invitation to Axeanda45 (+ everyone else)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,556
    http://www.gunthorp.com/Second%20amendment%20explained.htm

    Might have read it here not sure but here is a link. In simple english usage READ IT>
    I am far from a religious "holy roller" ( my apologies to the very faithful) but I think you should not look further then your rights to LIFE is a gift from "YOUR Creator". If you are an athiest ..."don't ask, don't tell" because if your rights come from man...as in government they can be taken away by man. Having said that, you have an inherent right to protect yourself! In fact it is YOUR obligation to protect yourself!
    The second amendment just points out that that right is protected by the constitution and can not be taken away. The use of a firearm is just a means of protecting that life.



    [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
    [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
    [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
    [Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
    [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
    [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.



    Click on the link and read all of it please. It will go a long way in shutting up the idiots that believe that only the police and army should have guns!

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by ricbak View Post
    I guess I'm getzen old cuz I could not remember the way to change. Taking a quick look around: 2/3's of Senators required to pass.


    Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    And...there it is! Thanks, RB.

  4. #13
    I agree they could pass an amendment. The bill of rights in my oppinion was much better than some of the amendments that came later. They were written by a group of men that were far better than some of those that came later.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Thank you ricbac!!

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,556
    Just something to think about.
    In 2003, this is what Kozinski had to say about some of his colleagues on the court ignoring the Second Amendment:

    "...All too many of the other great tragedies of history -- Stalin's
    atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name
    but a few -- were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed
    populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the
    perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle
    and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See
    Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in
    the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month
    with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles
    could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.




    There are dangers facing us that do not come from the government and those are real and we must do everything to support the second amendment. It is that amendment that allows all the other amendments, the Constitution to protect us!
    Maybe a few dollars to the NRA and the Heritage Foundation might help.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by CapGun View Post
    Just something to think about.
    In 2003, this is what Kozinski had to say about some of his colleagues on the court ignoring the Second Amendment:

    "...All too many of the other great tragedies of history -- Stalin's
    atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name
    but a few -- were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed
    populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the
    perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle
    and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See
    Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in
    the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month
    with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles
    could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

    There are dangers facing us that do not come from the government and those are real and we must do everything to support the second amendment. It is that amendment that allows all the other amendments, the Constitution to protect us!
    Maybe a few dollars to the NRA and the Heritage Foundation might help.

    +1 nice post

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sunny South Florida
    Posts
    486
    May I please say THANK YOU ALL for what is now an intelligent and comprehensive discussion on what most of us may consider our most important "RIGHT".

    As to "did I answer the question, or even the right question", I appologize for not being totally clear in my initial post, there is NO correct question, or specific question in general. My hope was to spur the intellect that exists here to help us all form perhaps an even clearer picture of the subject and to understand each others viewpoints ... I believe that is called education. I see that as being accomplished to this point in droves and hope to see much more as the discussion continues.

    Thank you all additionally for your civility ... it is a welcome commodity and hopefully for those who lurk will show that this group is not a bunch of "gun nuts" but a group of highly responsible and motivated citizens.

    Oh, and yes Axeanda45, I did mean the compliment... I kind of wondered if you might be an ACLU attorney.

  9. #18
    For the record there are numerous instances in the bible where weapons for defense were advocated...

    for starters...

    Luke 22:36-38 (King James Version)

    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

    38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

    In other words, if you do not have at least one weapon, sell what you have to buy one...

    Whether you believe in god or not, its a pretty hard sell to convince any sentient being that they do not have the fundamental right to defend their life by any means necessary...

    Where does the inalienability of the right to keep & bear arms come from in the U.S.?

    Not from the Constitution, not from the Second Amendment...

    Both of which merely reaffirm a inherent right that you were born with, a right to defend your life by any means necessary; using equal or greater force than may be brought against you; including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government...

    A right you can no more be denied than the right to breath or eat or protect your children, friends, family, neighbors...

    Be it a Cannon at Lexington & Concord against the British, or a Cannon at the Alamo against Santa Anna...
    Regardless of whether you are a soldier or a farmer...

    Or whatever weapons the future may bring us...

    THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
    by J. Neil Schulman:
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

    The Declaration of Independence in part...

    When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness...
    http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyame.../doi/text.html

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Because I live I have the right. We as free men should not need a document to provide us with this freedom.

    Now with the above typed...
    I'm glad that the founding fathers acknowledged the right as being granted or endowed by our creator and saw fit to provide a mechanism while creating a governing body of this great nation yet just in its infancy, to prevent that right from being taken away. Along with countless others. They were aware that we could become our own worst enemies. I believe they were warning us not to be.

    The wants of the few or of the many should never become the burden of all…

    My 2 cents…
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by CapGun View Post
    http://www.gunthorp.com/Second%20amendment%20explained.htm

    Might have read it here not sure but here is a link. In simple english usage READ IT>
    I am far from a religious "holy roller" ( my apologies to the very faithful) but I think you should not look further then your rights to LIFE is a gift from "YOUR Creator". If you are an athiest ..."don't ask, don't tell" because if your rights come from man...as in government they can be taken away by man. Having said that, you have an inherent right to protect yourself! In fact it is YOUR obligation to protect yourself!
    The second amendment just points out that that right is protected by the constitution and can not be taken away. The use of a firearm is just a means of protecting that life.



    [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
    [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
    [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
    [Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
    [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
    [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.



    Click on the link and read all of it please. It will go a long way in shutting up the idiots that believe that only the police and army should have guns!
    Thanks for the info, had to pass it on to a friend in an argument that this was very helpful for. :)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast