"unabridged" 2nd amendment - Page 12
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 117 of 117

Thread: "unabridged" 2nd amendment

  1. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    IMHO...

    Life trumps property...

    A paroled/released prisoner has a greater right to defend his life and that of his family, etc., than I do in restitution in spades for my family heirlooms...

    Notwithstanding, do you really want to treat the shoplifter of bubblegum the same as the purse snatcher?

    AND many of your arguments are the same the progressives make when they want to BAN a certain type/class of weapon for the so-called public good...
    OR they mean to otherwise infringe upon inalienable rights we were born with...

    If somebody is not taking 24x7 responsibility for your health, welfare and safety as in being incarcerated...

    Then you have to have the right to defend yourself...

    Giving Judges more power is not an solution either, this will expedite our road the progressives are already taking us down...
    So the DUI driver that puts you in a wheelchair for the rest of your life making you unable to defend yourself or you family should be able to defend himself and have all his rights back after his 44 months in jail while not only are you unable to defend yourself but you now cannot support yourself or your family. I may be in the small ignorant minority but I don't care if the SOB can ever defend himself again.

  2.   
  3. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    So the DUI driver that puts you in a wheelchair for the rest of your life making you unable to defend yourself or you family should be able to defend himself and have all his rights back after his 44 months in jail while not only are you unable to defend yourself but you now cannot support yourself or your family. I may be in the small ignorant minority but I don't care if the SOB can ever defend himself again.
    I agree with you...
    There is the problem... Make the punishments fit the crimes.. In this day and age anyone who gets into a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and operates the vehicle on public motorways while impaired should face harsh if not severe, punishments.

    Also remember this, bad things happen to good people. There is no way to make life fair for everyone... There are no guarantees...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

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

  4. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia, Woodstock
    Posts
    13
    A violent criminal is not a citizen! A citizen supports and is part of the community. Arms possession by the citizen should be unlimited to the extent of arms described by the 2nd amendment. Such things as heavy weapons and nuclear devices are only for the use of the community and aren't to be considered under the 2nd. When the community decides they are not being served by their officials they can remove them but only when their power is equal to the force of the tyrant. Heavy weapons are controlled by the community at large and that is only sensible. The 2nd is to allow the community to rise when threatened. It is in unity that the 2nd is realized as the power of a people run government. Our military is part of our community and I cannot dream that they would ever turn on their own people so arguments about heavies don't belong in the 2nd forums. If I found out that a person in my community had a nuclear device I would probably take the action of native Americans and shoot some arrows into them to see how powerful their medicine was. Keep and bear arms describes individual weaponry not community weaponry.

  5. #114
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by sirwilliam View Post
    A violent criminal is not a citizen! A citizen supports and is part of the community. Arms possession by the citizen should be unlimited to the extent of arms described by the 2nd amendment. Such things as heavy weapons and nuclear devices are only for the use of the community and aren't to be considered under the 2nd. When the community decides they are not being served by their officials they can remove them but only when their power is equal to the force of the tyrant. Heavy weapons are controlled by the community at large and that is only sensible. The 2nd is to allow the community to rise when threatened. It is in unity that the 2nd is realized as the power of a people run government. Our military is part of our community and I cannot dream that they would ever turn on their own people so arguments about heavies don't belong in the 2nd forums. If I found out that a person in my community had a nuclear device I would probably take the action of native Americans and shoot some arrows into them to see how powerful their medicine was. Keep and bear arms describes individual weaponry not community weaponry.
    The Founding Fathers would disagree. It was their thinking that the gov't should never have more firepower than the citizen should have. So that the citizens could always overthrow a gov't that got out of hand. Kind of hard to fight back against the Feds or even a state gov't without heavy weapons. That was also the thinking in making the Army get re-funded every two years and the President as a civilian in charge of the military. Plus the governors being over their National Guards.

  6. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by sirwilliam View Post
    A violent criminal is not a citizen! A citizen supports and is part of the community. Arms possession by the citizen should be unlimited to the extent of arms described by the 2nd amendment. Such things as heavy weapons and nuclear devices are only for the use of the community and aren't to be considered under the 2nd. When the community decides they are not being served by their officials they can remove them but only when their power is equal to the force of the tyrant. Heavy weapons are controlled by the community at large and that is only sensible. The 2nd is to allow the community to rise when threatened. It is in unity that the 2nd is realized as the power of a people run government. Our military is part of our community and I cannot dream that they would ever turn on their own people so arguments about heavies don't belong in the 2nd forums. If I found out that a person in my community had a nuclear device I would probably take the action of native Americans and shoot some arrows into them to see how powerful their medicine was. Keep and bear arms describes individual weaponry not community weaponry.

    At one time I would have agreed with you but after much study and thought I disagree completely with you. The writers of the Constitution and BOR did not want a standing army as it could be used to control the people as you think that it would not. That was exactly what they were concerned about is that a standing army would be used against the people and was why they put restrictions on it. During the revolution most of the arms (cannons, ships and all) were privately owned. The private arms were used to defeat the government (the King and his army) and that is what the writers wanted. In my opinion that the right for the individual to be armed for his own personal protection was so ingrained in their thoughts that they did not even consider that to be a part of 2A as the idea of it being taken away other than as an act of takeover of the population was unheard of. It was a given that the individual would always be able to use good judgement and protect themselves. And the present day National Guard is not what they meant by militia. The NG is that standing army that they were concerned about more than our actual army.

  7. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia, Woodstock
    Posts
    13
    We the people are the government and not the officials we elect. They are our representatives and work for us. The community controls the heavy weapons and also owns the equipment of the US military. Our representatives seem to forget the oaths that they take when sworn into office. Many of them say they are doing what their constituents want in pushing for gun laws but the oaths they take say different as they swear to uphold and defend. Pushing for infringement on the 2nd is violation of oath of office but no one pursues them in court. The laws on the books are unconstitutional but no one challenges them in court. There is much wrong in the policies but the community does not rise up. Is it fear or laziness that keeps the people from taking back the government of the people. Talk and no action seems to be the rule of the day. If they are wrong then throw them out. If they violate their oaths to protect the constitution they are traitors. Why is nothing done? Is blind justice now asleep? I don't want my neighbor having a Vulcan 20mm. Seems to me if 500 neighbors from each neighborhood get together in concert and armed they can obtain the use of their own community weaponry if they need it. For an army to be used against the populace they must have contempt for the people. If they see their own families in that group then how can they act against them? If any type of weapon is allowed then some mentally handicapped person will use it when upset. The use of small arms every day in criminal acts is proof of that. The laws should control the use of weapons in violent criminal acts by providing severe and quick punishment for such. The communities need to organize militias as described in the 2nd. If everyone gets together the odd cases will stick out quickly and therapy could deal with them as appropriate. If we can't learn to take the responsibility given us by the constitution we have been given and work together to keep it and defend it then we aren't worthy of it! Unity and action are what is needed.
    WHERE IS IT?

  8. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia, Woodstock
    Posts
    13
    By disagree completely, do you mean that violent criminals are citizens due the rights of the rest of us? Do you believe that the second is protected by an individual or would it be that individuals working together should protect our rights? I believe that the 2nd was written to allow an armed community to rise together as they did in the revolution. It wasn't one person that threw out the English forces. I would rather trust the group than the individual. We need to get together and jointly keep track of our members to avoid one crackpot causing a bad name to come over all of us as in violent criminals actions being used as gun control rallying cries.The statement that "guns causing crime is like matches causing arson" is so true. It is also true that well intentioned people will give away your rights quickly since they don't need or want your rights. There are a lot of people that have no idea of the rights granted by the constitution and yet they are allowed to vote! There should be a citizenship test before a voter card is issued.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-11-2010, 05:57 PM
  2. The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 04:02 PM
  3. 2nd Amendment extended to states and local governments
    By Stiofan in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 11:39 AM
  4. Chicago Tribune: Repeal the 2nd Amendment
    By tracker in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 07:37 PM
  5. Americans Say 2nd Amendment Is Individual Right
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 10:17 AM

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