NYC Proposal to BAN GUNS if you're a bad driver, in debt, a litterbug

reply to post by neo96


As I have stated in other threads on related subjects, in my opinion, the inclusion of militia and infringed in the Second Amendment is justification for ownership of the same firearms that are used by the military. I do not believe that the National Guard is a permissable substitute for militias, because it is controlled by the State and Federal Government.
I believe that if I want to own an M-2 .50 cal. Machine Gun that is my right under the Second Amendment.

I also believe that licenses, permits and registration are infringements on my rights under the Second Amendment. Before people start calling me a kook, because I favor private ownership of military grade weapons, let me say a few things.

First. Gun laws are redundant. We have laws in place covering murder, robbery, reckless endangerment and everything else under the Sun. We don't need special laws that deal specifically with guns.

Second. Gun laws and restrictions only affect law abiding citizens. These are the people that you don't have to worry about anyway. These laws and restrictions have no effect on the drug dealer with the full auto AK-47.

Third and foremost. Take politics out of gun ownership. I know personally of four seperate incidents where people were refused conceled carry permits because of their political affiliation. The issue never went to Court because an agreement was reached where a Sheriff would resign his office and not run for re-election.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Lets break this down:
a) No one should ever need a permit to own something protected by the Constitution.

basically that is the gist of it all.
we should not need a permit to own a firearm,
that restriction is not sanctioned in the Constitution.

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.

The law was put there, because the common citizen should be as well armed as the common soldier is.

bah doublepost. cold shivering made me hit the button more than once

I am genuinely curious how so many of the same posters that are so eager to pick the 1st amendment apart piece by piece and over analyze exactly which words are used but when it comes to the 2nd amendment, people just make stuff up. I asked a serious question about what the 2nd actually says and the only answer I got was that "yeah, everyone has a right to nuclear bombs."
As a gunowner, and advocate of seperation of church and state, I am really confused by these double standards.

reply to post by Curiousisall


Curiousisall don't troll. You've gotten your answer to the 2nd amendment wording many times over throughout this post. The reason you're getting a debate regarding it's meaning is because gun ownership has become so political and politics have muddled the meaning of it. If you read my post earlier you'll see that I copied word for word the 2nd amendment from the constitution. I also added the meanings that I believed I had read from the "disclosure" portion of the constitution. At the time I didn't have the copy I normally keep. (Yes I have a copy of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.) It is and will be the MOST important set of documents anyone can keep in their home as it will be castrated by our government. You've already heard congress say that it's outdated. Plus not to mention half the people in office probably don't know or care what the constitution says.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
I am genuinely curious how so many of the same posters that are so eager to pick the 1st amendment apart piece by piece and over analyze exactly which words are used but when it comes to the 2nd amendment, people just make stuff up. I asked a serious question about what the 2nd actually says and the only answer I got was that "yeah, everyone has a right to nuclear bombs."
As a gunowner, and advocate of seperation of church and state, I am really confused by these double standards.

Again, the people do indeed have the right to own nuclear weapons. The government would most likely execute someone who did, but we all know they dont care about the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to resist a tyrannical government. It isnt that difficult of a concept to understand.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
I am genuinely curious how so many of the same posters that are so eager to pick the 1st amendment apart piece by piece and over analyze exactly which words are used but when it comes to the 2nd amendment, people just make stuff up. I asked a serious question about what the 2nd actually says and the only answer I got was that "yeah, everyone has a right to nuclear bombs."
As a gunowner, and advocate of seperation of church and state, I am really confused by these double standards.

Why do you keep accusing people of making stuff up?

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.

That is the second amendment. Short and sweet, we are supposed to be able to arm ourselves as we see fit, in case we need to stand against a real army, led by a corrupt government. The damn national guard is not a militia BTW, idiot ancestors let themselves be convinced that with the national guard militias were no longer needed.

Originally posted by Detour

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
"Our founding fathers would be shooting by now."

No, they would have won already and left the nooses hanging as a reminder to the next SOB.

Sounds about right! Still love the shirt.

Bought one, in fact.