New Forum for 2nd Amendment Issues Only - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: New Forum for 2nd Amendment Issues Only

  1. Excellent and WISE idea Luke. Thank you.

    TFO
    Armatissimi e liberissimi


  2.   
  3. #12
    I think it will prove to be a good move Luke. Perhaps those that are always complaining that a subject is to political can now just stay away from the political forum and find something else to view.
    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

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Hey ED H and Luke: I understand what you are saying ED and you are correct to a point. I believe that the "extreme" rhetoric that had overtaken the political side of the combined thread was just that--extreme--and if it was to continue let it have its own space for people to argue and get angry with each other. Sure politics and 2A do go hand in hand in many instances but the comments on 2A can and should be more measured and, hopefully, the forum will keep a tight leash on extreme comments for a 2A thread. If nothing works and politics becomes a completely crazy rant site followed by the 2A site, either the forum eliminates both of them or cautions members that they are entering a "no spin zone" to quote Mr. Reilly.

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Hey Y'all: I'm free at last, free at last. I do not have to think 2A and get embroiled in sadistic political discussions, which were turning me and other fellow members into outrageous "reply enemies" and worse. Just to get started, are there any opinions out there on the possibility that gun control ala Brady or Bloomberg or the world order UN could actually occur in the US? Personally, I would think that ammunition control is more likely although that still would not stop you and I from having our firearms and the defensive ammunition to go with them--we just would not be practicing as much. What really would tick me off if the fact that, once again, the federal govt and even certain cities will try to stick their big fat ugly, hypocritical, intrusive nose into my state's business. Where does gun control fit into a federal or city mandate under the constitution? Hey members, how about some thoughtful comments and questions concerning 2A that will keep our minds away from that nasty "politics thread".
    First and foremost...thank you Luke! Secondly, Kelcarry- That's why I buy a box of ammo nearly every time I drive past my gun shop or when I visit Walmart...I'm stockpiling just in case we end up with ammo restrictions / laws like you mentioned. Peace!

  6. #15
    handgonnetoter Guest
    Here is one for the good guys. Starting on July 1, CCW holders will be able to keep their weapons locked in their vehicles while they are at work. Gov. of Indiana signed it into law for Indiana workers and it takes effect on 7/1/2010!

  7. #16
    Ed
    "The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

  8. ---Quote (Originally by Blogengeezer)---Please help. New Governor of New Mexico, Suzanna Martinez (R) needs to be notified. Her predecessor gov Bill Richardson (D), followed the California and Nevada dogma of non-renewel of the rights of State of Utah concealed carry permit holders. Reciprocity has recently been removed.

    It needs to be re-instated as soon as possible. NM is the state where any illegals from Any country may be licenced to drive cars, but where the Utah CCW who has been classroom certified and FBI background checked, is presently no longer recognised as a Law Abiding 2nd ammendment Citizen.. Your Help is greatly appreciated. Suzanna Martinez (R) is a staunch suporter of the 2nd Amendment. She has wisely requested the termination of 300 of her predecessors 'appointees'.---End Quote---Put this as a topic in firearms politics, where more people will read it. And yes, I agree. I live in New Mexico.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Edsworld View Post
    True, and they should read this too

    Third Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

    Imagine an unarmed property owner trying to withhold consent, just because there's armed soldiers asking for it.

    Remember the time period, we just came out from under the thumb of armed British soldiers oppression.

    If an armed soldier held you or an unarmed family member hostage, you'd give "consent"

    So an individual right to be armed, even outside your house, was contemplated. and an individual unalienable right to self defense was recognized, wherever you may be.

    Now we realized that a "well regulated militia" soldiers were a "necessary evil"
    but didn't want a repeat of the British oppressive ones, so ...

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    So, consent is true consent if given, not consent under duress.

    An individual unalienable right to self defense was recognized, wherever you may be.

    Easy to understand if you know the legislative intent and that Time period's historical factual basis for those two being together at the same time in the mind of the writers.

    I'm blessed to have had relatives on the Mayflower, which married into some of the families which wrote those Amendments, and my Aunt is 100 years old as of last December, her dad was 99, and I knew my great great grandfather, it isn't like we are talking about the time of Christ, it wasn't that long ago that we forgot why it was written, however, there's a lot of misinformation spread by what I call "johnny-come-lately" New York PolySci professors with agendas.

    I've answered many a misinformed person recently who asked "What's you carrying a gun got to do with a "well regulated militia?"
    There's the answer.

    Dr. S. Hupp understands it, that's why she told Congress, it has nothing to do with hunting, it's so WE (the people) can protect ourselves against YOU.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    39
    Just finished reading the Second Amendment Foundation's court filings in Palmer v District of Columbia. The Plaintiff made an interesting observation in his reply to Opposition's response to Motion for Summary Judgement.

    Obviously, I'm paraphrasing here... He notes that based on Heller v District of Columbia and it's recognition of the Second Amendment's as a fundamental individual right to 'keep and bear arms' for self-defense that the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) is unconstitutional. The requirement that a gun owner while traveling must keep his firearm unloaded and secured to be afforded protection under the act violates an individuals right to "keep and bear (carry) arms" for self-defense since doing so would render such arms useless and thereby deprive him of his constitutional right.

    Hmmm... I like the sound of that. Too bad the Judge in the case is sitting on his decision. The ruling was expected in September of last year and he has yet to rule.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    39
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    I have a question. Do I have this right?. Might seem silly but I want to be sure I have both the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Heller v District of Columbia and the historical reasoning of the Founders right.

    The Anti-Federalists feared a strong national government. They saw the militia as a counter to that threat, but feared a national government might attempt to disarm the militia at some point in the future as had been done in England's past.

    Their solution was an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense. If the people couldn't be disarmed, by extension neither could the militia.

    I've always understood we had the right to keep and bear arms, but the why isn't exactly taught in school if you know what I mean?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 05:02 PM
  2. Democrats Divided Over Gun Amendment in D.C.
    By gdcleanfun in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-28-2009, 06:08 PM
  3. Plagarization of 2A work
    By SubHntr in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 06:12 PM
  4. Supreme Court hearing on 2nd Amendment
    By sheep dog in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2008, 02:19 AM
  5. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2007, 08:19 PM

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