The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

ATN_Pilot said:
Nah, it's pretty much a demonstrable fact. No matter how much you're pressed for it, you patently refuse to state any specific policy position.
Click to expand...

It is particularly frustrating arguing with Liberals, isn't it ATN? Plus, those bastards in the news media pushing an agenda that is against ours. Both of those things, just frustrating wouldn't you say?
 
WacoFan said:
It is particularly frustrating arguing with Liberals, isn't it ATN? Plus, those bastards in the news media pushing an agenda that is against ours. Both of those things, just frustrating wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...
Liberals usually have facts to back up their positions, which is why I am one. However, gun control is one issue that they're emotional, afraid and ridiculous. Almost every issue conservatives have they act this way these days (gay marriage, health care, abortion, immigration, etc.)
 
33297797.jpg
 
WacoFan said:
It is particularly frustrating arguing with Liberals, isn't it ATN? Plus, those bastards in the news media pushing an agenda that is against ours. Both of those things, just frustrating wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

I vehemently disagree that either end of the political spectrum (or any point in between) holds either the moral or ethical high ground when it comes to emotional, kneejerk defense of a belief when it is attacked.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm relatively certain that you're just a troll, but on the off chance that you're not, you may want to read a little thing called the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. States can't nullify federal laws on their own.
Click to expand...

Like Colorado and Washington with their recreational cannabis use laws? Or every other state with medicinal marijuana laws?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
See, the problem here is that the people who want to talk of banning these things don't even know the slightest thing about them. An AR-15 is an incredibly common gun.
Click to expand...

Just wondering how they compare numbers wise to say a shot gun or other long guns? I have shot my neighbors Bushmaster AR a few time, and I have to say that I would have no interest in owning one. When the zombies do come, I wan't something with fewer moving parts.
 
Houston said:
As the NRA said following their meeting with Joe Biden "“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,”
Click to expand...

This is the part that really pisses me off. This whole "save the children" isn't about the children at all. No matter what event occurs, it's always just an opportunity for some politician to push their own agendas.
 
I have not studied this topic at all in the past, but in skimming these threads a question has crossed my mind. (Probably already been covered ad nauseum, but rather then spend an hour digging I'm just going to ask.)

Do I have a constitutionally protected right to join with others to form a militia and fully arm it to protect ourselves against the government?
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
On the subject of the "well regulated militia" clause of the second amendment that reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ..." clause. Anti-gun people say that this indicates a "collective" or "community" right and that it is satisfied by the state National Guards, and would allow banning of guns owned by private individuals I would posit that:

1) Increased weapons for the "collective authority" (the government) and reduced weapons for the actual community (the people) does nothing to increase freedom and much to reduce it.
2) If it is a "collective right" then it is redundant because the government would never ban the government from owning weapons.
3) Well-regulated had a different meaning than in our modern vernacular. Well-regulated at the time the constitution was drafted meant training.

Further on the subject of what "the people" means in the clause that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed":
1) If "the people" does not mean "all of the people" but instead means "the government of the people" then what about the other areas in the consitution that delineate rights of the people?
1a) Does the first amendment only protect the collective and not individual right of assembly or free expression? That is to say, our collective assembly could be said to be Congress -- is it lawful to outlaw all other types of assembly?
1b) Does the fourth amendment only protect the collective right and not individual right to be free of unreasonable search and seizures? If argued with the same justification anti-gun people argue the second amendment then it would protect the Department of Interior from search from the Department of Justice, but not individual persons.
1c) Do all the unlisted rights in the ninth and tenth amendments all apply only to the collective and not individual?
1d) In the seventeenth amendment that describes how Senators are to be elected by the people, does that mean that individual people should not have a part in the election and they should they be selected by the collective (government)?
2) If answers 1a - 1d are all No then how do you explain that it is only the second amendment where "the people" does not mean "all the people"?
Click to expand...
The militia act if 1903 actually states who is in a militia. It lays the groundwork for selective service by allowing the president to pull militias into federal service. Any able bodied man ( as the act states - and why women are not eligible for selective service) between 17-45 is in the unorganized militia, additionally, those with prior military service are in and eligible until 65.

Militias are supposed to be well trained, the organized required 24 days of training a year, while unorganized does not. The simple fact that most of us on this board could be pressed into service in the military, with military grade weapons means we must be able to train on and with them. If they wanted to provide weapons to the unorganized militia, then yes they can regulate them. Being that I must purchase it in my own, then I don't see how they have that authority
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Join a militia, then word for word you are protected by the constitution.

Any attempt to disarm you would no longer have merit.

Oh, wait, per the militia act of 1903, all able bodies men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not members of the armed forces are part of the "unorganized militia " , as recognized by congress.

I fail to see how any restriction to my right to bear arms is constitutional, and as part of a militia ( jokingly used) I will continue to uphold and protect the constitution. - buys a new gun online-
Click to expand...

Ooo, what did you get?!
 
SteveC said:
I have not studied this topic at all in the past, but in skimming these threads a question has crossed my mind. (Probably already been covered ad nauseum, but rather then spend an hour digging I'm just going to ask.)

Do I have a constitutionally protected right to join with others to form a militia and fully arm it to protect ourselves against the government?
Click to expand...
Unless you are older than 45, you are already in a militia. :)
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Nothing much fun, just an 870. Prices on non tacticool guns are the only thing reasonable right now.
Click to expand...

Cool, to be honest the tacticool never appealed much to me. I agree though, I got a new P226 for a good deal, because no one even looked at it. Now market value is back up $100 since the purchase. For a now $2500 "Assault Rifle" I could start work on a sick long range M700.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top