The words "to bear arms" is a military term - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: The words "to bear arms" is a military term

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by father-of-three View Post
    The recent supreme court rulings seem to be leaving us with a well regulated second amendment instead of a well regulated militia!

    I think I mentioned this in a thread some time ago, but there's a chapter in Glenn Beck's book "Arguing with Idiots," that goes into good detail on the second amendment, including the meaning of words and prose used in the 18th century.
    The purpose of this thread was to enlight people to the fact the very guns that the gun grabbers are wanting to ban are the ones that the superme court has said are those that are protected by the second amendment. meaning military grade firearms. The M-16 is a military grade firearm yet we have restriction against having one.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,558
    Amendments I IV IX and X use the word "people" conveying rights of the individual. The II amendment also uses the word "people".
    Therefore it is an individual right!
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member
    NRA Certified RSO

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    When the progressive liberals get enough voting people dependent on them, more of our freedoms will be gone. Watch out for the buzz words. It's for our safety, it's for the children, it's what a prudent person would do. Liberal progressives have been chipping away at our freedoms for years in small chunks using these terms and others. If we don't stop this freight train and soon, it's going to be more of "wow, how did that happen". Wake up voters and soon!
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  5. #24
    In the days of the Drafters, the militia was what was available to protect the local towns and counties from marauders of whatever ilk. THey did not want a standing army (there were no empires adjacent to the US to threaten us) as a standing army could be the very tool a tyrant would use to subjugate the people. So it was left to militias to provide for law and order above and beyond what the local constabulary could provide. As a result we had virtually no Army to defend DC against the British in the War of 1812, so the Brits sacked and burned DC.

    What that meant was your local farmers, ranchers, and homeowners needed a gun to protect themselves against raiding thieves and others. When the raiders became numerous, then the homeowners and land owners banded together in a militia bringing with them their own guns. When the skirmishes were over, they took their own guns back home.

    I believe the 2nd Ammendment speaks to this nature of gun owners, and militias. It simply states that these people shall not have their right to bear arms infiringed. It, amongst other things to be sure, infringed on their ability to form a militia if they had no arms (guns, I mean, of course)!

  6. #25
    Hear Hear! It's been 100 years coming - and it's time for it to stop!

  7. #26
    I do not believe the military only connotation for one fricking minute...

    Without the Unabridged Second Amendment, WE THE PEOPLE have no effective means to remove or replace a tyrannical government, a core tenet of the Second Amendment...

    Why did the Revolutionary War start at Lexington & Concord? because the Brits wanted to place limitations on the amount & type of weapons WE THE PEOPLE could posses and where and when...
    Your farmers you don't need such weapons... we will protect you...

    Why did Texas create a flag with a cannon on it and the phrase "Come & Take It" ? because Santa Anna wanted to take their cannons & powder away...
    Your farmers & ranchers you don't need such weapons your government & army will protect you...








    Why did the Civil War start? it sure wasn't because of slavery as we would be made to believe...
    The war was fought over secession, not over slavery. If the South had not declared its independence, Lincoln would not have launched an invasion, and there would have been no war.
    Was the War Fought Over Slavery | American Civil War

    THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
    by J. Neil Schulman

    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    "The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
    that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press." - Thomas Jefferson

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

    We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
    ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

    [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
    ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

    Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
    ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he 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.
    ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

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

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Bohemian

    I do not believe the military only connotation for one fricking minute
    What you and most fail to realize the reason I started this thread, is to show that the very weapons that have been baned from the public are those that are protected by the second amendment.
    Weapons such as the M-16 M-60 M-203 are military grade weapons and the general poublics right is infringed from owning one which is a violation of the second amendment.

    Look at the superme court rulings I have posted. They have all ruled in order for a weapon to be protected by the second amendment it must have some military value. The very weapons that were on the Clinton gun ban and the very weapons that if given the chance obama will also ban.

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    Bohemian

    What you and most fail to realize the reason I started this thread, is to show that the very weapons that have been banned from the public are those that are protected by the second amendment.
    Weapons such as the M-16 M-60 M-203 are military grade weapons and the general public's right is infringed from owning one which is a violation of the second amendment.

    Look at the supreme court rulings I have posted. They have all ruled in order for a weapon to be protected by the second amendment it must have some military value. The very weapons that were on the Clinton gun ban and the very weapons that if given the chance obama will also ban.
    I understand the intent of the thread, the problem is I think the title and the original post snippet can be subject to interpretation as an endorsement by a member of the pro-gun/pro-second amendment community that some types/classes of weapons are for military use only (endorsement of bans by type/class of weapon); and that has historically been the gun-grabbers biggest argument...
    Military Grade Weapons should be under the exclusive control of a Federal or State Government...
    Moreover, people can have so-called military grade weapons as long as they are in the military in government service...

    I just was endeavoring to make sure that interpretation was not left as such in the public domain without strong rebuttal that the community as a whole is opposed to bans by type/class of weapon by non-military/police/government employees.

    "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Elbridge Gerry

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

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    I understand the intent of the thread, the problem is I think the title and the original post snippet can be subject to interpretation as an endorsement by a member of the pro-gun/pro-second amendment community that some types/classes of weapons are for military use only (endorsement of bans by type/class of weapon); and that has historically been the gun-grabbers biggest argument...
    Military Grade Weapons should be under the exclusive control of a Federal or State Government...
    Moreover, people can have so-called military grade weapons as long as they are in the military in government service...

    I just was endeavoring to make sure that interpretation was not left as such in the public domain without strong rebuttal that the community as a whole is opposed to bans by type/class of weapon by non-military/police/government employees.

    "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Elbridge Gerry
    Point is, the very weapons gun grabbers are wanting to ban are the same ones the supreme court has ruled that are protected by the second amendment because of their military value.

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    Point is, the very weapons gun grabbers are wanting to ban are the same ones the supreme court has ruled that are protected by the second amendment because of their military value.
    Agreed, but SCOTUS usurped the power of judicial review...

    Their very rulings are unconstitutional...

    The Second Amendment protects a preexisting, fundamental right to defend our lives, that of our friends, family, neighbors, etc., against all enemies, foreign or domestic; including but not limited to our own Government; using equal or greater force than may be brought against us; and the single most important tenet of the Second Amendment our framers left us; was the ability to remove or replace our own tyrannical government. Without the Unabridged Second Amendment they left in our care; WE THE PEOPLE have no effective means to remove or replace a tyrannical government.

    The bill of rights were written in unambiguous terms to be understood by the common people...
    That is why most of the originals are so brief, they intended them to be that way; so nothing could be further read into them as SCOTUS and Congress and others have been doing...

    Congress & SCOTUS and law makers at the state, local and other municipality levels have created some 22,000 and counting ambiguous exceptions to "... Shall Not Be Infringed..."

    You posted the Miller SCOTUS decision for example; that has been the source of some 70 years of convoluted legal precedence that is in total contradiction to the Second Amendment...

    The Heller & McDonald SCOTUS decisions further muddied the waters with ambiguity unbelievably stating that it was OK to ban some types/classes of weapons... THANK THE NRA, THE SAF and Alan Gura Esq., for the SELL-OUTS...

    WTF with the Valid Sporting Purpose B.S. laws? how is that consistent with "... Shall Not Be Infringed..." ?

    I am of the opinion that the Second Amendment nor any others need or should have anything read into them...
    They were created in the most unambiguous terms as possible and mean the same today as they did when they were written...
    In the case of the Second Amendment "...Shall Not Be Infringed ..." means just that PERIOD, no exceptions...

    Not "...Shall Not Be Infringed ..." Except if your zip code is x, the type or class of weapon you desire to carry is y or you desire to carry said weapon openly or concealed...

    THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
    by J. Neil Schulman

    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    England Gun Ban - Coming Soon To The United States For The So-Called Public Good (IF we do not get off of our collective arses)


    Alan Keyes on the Second Amendment and gun rights


    Ron Paul on the Second Amendment and gun rights


    Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

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

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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