JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
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.

Makes perfect sense to me. I just can't see what the debate is all about. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is that there is no debate as to what it means. The debate is whether or not to strike it completely. To disarm the people is, in effect, striking the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights. An important question I ask is, if the 2nd amendment is removed from the Bill of Rights, which one is next?
 
Those that find something in the Constitution they disagree with believe it is a "living and breathing" document, one that is supposed to be continually updated to keep up with modern times. We have heard the argument about the second amendment, where "assault rifles were not around when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, so how can they be protected", etc.

People that think this way should be living and breathing somewhere else.
 
Those that find something in the Constitution they disagree with believe it is a "living and breathing" document, one that is supposed to be continually updated to keep up with modern times. We have heard the argument about the second amendment, where "assault rifles were not around when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, so how can they be protected", etc.

People that think this way should be living and breathing somewhere else.

The thing is that it is a document that can and has changed over time..... using a process spelled out within it.
Those men who wrote it made the process of changing it very difficult on purpose - so that it would not change on a wimple whim.
 
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.

Makes perfect sense to me. I just can't see what the debate is all about. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is that there is no debate as to what it means. The debate is whether or not to strike it completely. To disarm the people is, in effect, striking the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights. An important question I ask is, if the 2nd amendment is removed from the Bill of Rights, which one is next?

A lot of different things make perfect sense to different people, while others just can't see a darn thing. There is no debate whether to strike Second Amendment. Majority of the states have a version of Second Amendment in their state constitutions, and their firearms policies clearly indicate their full support of it. As such, it is impossible to have the Second Amendment removed from the Bill of Rights, since the only way to do that is through another Amendment, with support of two thirds of the states.

The debate is really about what Second Amendment means, and just like with any other law, we have a whole branch of the government to clarify that for everybody else. It has already been established that Second Amendment is not about individuals being allowed to serve in the Militia. It has been established that is not about the states having a right to organize a militia. What hasn't been established is whether the government has a compelling interest in restricting citizens from carrying arms in a public setting. Interest so compelling that it would override a constitutional protection (assuming it exists). Now let's sit back and see what kind of bunny they're going to pull out of their hat this time.
 
We have heard the argument about the second amendment, where "assault rifles were not around when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, so how can they be protected", etc.

People that think this way should be living and breathing somewhere else.
Just tell them that only hand presses were around back then. Anything over the air, on the Internet, magazine or in a newspaper isn't covered by the 1st amendment!
 
Those that find something in the Constitution they disagree with believe it is a "living and breathing" document, one that is supposed to be continually updated to keep up with modern times. We have heard the argument about the second amendment, where "assault rifles were not around when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, so how can they be protected", etc.

People that think this way should be living and breathing somewhere else.

Assault rifles most certainly did exist back then, they just operated a little differently and fired a bit slower. They had rifles and they assaulted with them when needed. ;)
 
Nice website: http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml

This is what we are up against, like the Germans in the Weimar Republic before their government disarmed them.

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.
Heinrich Himmler

You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state (MA).
Michael Dukakis

[P]eople who like assault weapons, they should join the United States Army; we have them.
Wesley Clark
 
As of Heller, the militia argument is mute. Now we move to interpreting the the word "infringe" as it applies to the 2nd amendment right afforded the individual.
 
I guess that ended that discussion. Next, when the supreme court tells big brother that the 14th amendment does not mean the federalies can do whatever they want, any time they want. We can overturn a couple of those GRA's that they snuck in when the NRA's head was up a dark stinky hole with no light.
 
I guess that ended that discussion. Next, when the supreme court tells big brother that the 14th amendment does not mean the federalies can do whatever they want, any time they want. We can overturn a couple of those GRA's that they snuck in when the NRA's head was up a dark stinky hole with no light.

Except that's not happening. There wasn't a single major case in last 100 years where SCOTUS would rule against Federal government.
 
I believe that SCOTUS overturned Bush when they upheld the rights of the detainies at guantanamo in regards to habeas corpus. SCOTUS can and will go against the grain. Scalia has a mind of his own when it comes to the constitution.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top