The Second Amendment: A Treatise

"Shall not be infringed"

The possession of an arm is a PRIMARY right.

Infringment on this primary right takes the path of SECONDARY issues and concerns:
In fringement is speaking about peripheral or secondary issues, not the primary right to bear arms.
Fringe like what happens to the bottom of a pair of blue jeans cut off at the knees to make shorts. The fringe, not the solid cloth, the fringe.

type of action-- fully auto --banned--infringement
assault weapon banned---infringement
type of ammo-- FMJ--banned--infringement
magazine capacity--less than 8-- infringement
21 to purchase handgun-- infringement
18 to purchase pistol-- infringement
license to carry concealed--infringement
can transport unloaded locked in trunk---infringement
can not purchase except through FFL -- infringement
must fill out form 4473--infringement
must pass instant background check-- infringement
cannot own if criminal-- infringement
cannot store without lock--infringement
required hunter safety class-- infringement
CCW class--infringement
attempting to pass ammunition with expiration date--infringement
attempting to impose excessive tax on ammo--infringement
cannot carry weapon in no weapon zone-- school, courthouse, etc---infringement
registering firearms in kalifornia--infringement
I could go on and on.

Shall not be infringed.
Sorry, but we are way behind the learning curve here patriots.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Great read!! Thank you very much for taking the time to put this thread together. S&F

If i could do more than simply star and flag this post I would.

You good sir are a patriot.

reply to post by slugger9787


Yeah tell me about it, I live in ca, the list of guns I can't own are staggering, yet if I moved to almost any of the other 50 states I could own them, just plain silly.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Well said.......I got your back.

reply to post by KJV1611


reply to post by benrl


reply to post by trcikeydickey


Thank you for your kind words.

It is just straight facts. I don't know what is so difficult about it.

Just wondering, why is the word "democracy" never mentioned in the constitution, bill of rights, or any of the amendments?

A great post....well supported by the "founding father's" own words (which stands to their intent of the rationale for the 2A and the definition of "militia"). The Original Poster should copy and paste this to Eric Holder and his boss.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


An extraordinarily well prepared summary. One thing I would add:

The Second Amendment, currently, is trampled upon in the most disgusting of ways. The standing Army, which by all rights is constitutionally forbidden, received preferential armament over The People's Militia. This means that the right of the people to revolt has been negated.

Armament provided to US Military members include such things as F-22 Raptors, nuclear warheads, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, conventional warheads, missile technology as a delivery system for warheads, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention the black stuff, like adaptive camoflauge.

The right of the people to overthrow the government has been completely nullified. If anyone believes otherwise, see Libya (where "rebels" were basically throwing sticks and stones at Libyan fighter jets and attack choppers).

The demand of the 2nd Amendment is an abolishing of any concept of "gun control" or any other such notion. If it is good enough for Uncle Sam's Standing Army, it is good enough for The People's Militia.

Were I not so lazy, I would go dig up SCOTUS rulings that mirror my position above. Hopefully it will be unnecessary, as I think I am going back to sleep.

Originally posted by slugger9787
"Shall not be infringed"

The possession of an arm is a PRIMARY right.

Infringment on this primary right takes the path of SECONDARY issues and concerns:
In fringement is speaking about peripheral or secondary issues, not the primary right to bear arms.
Fringe like what happens to the bottom of a pair of blue jeans cut off at the knees to make shorts. The fringe, not the solid cloth, the fringe.

type of action-- fully auto --banned--infringement
assault weapon banned---infringement
type of ammo-- FMJ--banned--infringement
magazine capacity--less than 8-- infringement
21 to purchase handgun-- infringement
18 to purchase pistol-- infringement
license to carry concealed--infringement
can transport unloaded locked in trunk---infringement
can not purchase except through FFL -- infringement
must fill out form 4473--infringement
must pass instant background check-- infringement
cannot own if criminal-- infringement
cannot store without lock--infringement
required hunter safety class-- infringement
CCW class--infringement
attempting to pass ammunition with expiration date--infringement
attempting to impose excessive tax on ammo--infringement
cannot carry weapon in no weapon zone-- school, courthouse, etc---infringement
registering firearms in kalifornia--infringement
I could go on and on.

Shall not be infringed.
Sorry, but we are way behind the learning curve here patriots.

You, my friend, are outstanding. Not many people actually "get" this.

Using different logic than used in my post, you have come to the exact same conclusions as me, and a whole host of others.

Well put.

Of course, we can count on the feds to make things worse not better.

So convoluted I'm at the end of my rope. When will it be okay to smack the # out of these people?

Originally posted by TreadUpon
Of course, we can count on the feds to make things worse not better.

So convoluted I'm at the end of my rope. When will it be okay to smack the # out of these people?

It will never be OK to smack these people, or to use our guns to take our government by force, since that's not PC and we're all a bunch of pussies. Peaceful protest and all that garbage.

While I am a gun owner and believe in the right to bare arms I also believe there are limits. Let me also say I would love to have automatic weapons because they are fun but they have no real purpose. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution the weapons of that time were no where near as destructive as todays.

Would anyone wan't there neighbor owning a nuclear bomb? Strictly going by the secound amendment it should be lawfull but I don't want to live in a country that has no boudries. A lot of it is just common sense and I feel like both sides blow things out of proportion. IMO.

reply to post by Grimpachi

"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

The "real" purpose for someone to possess automatic weapons would be to protect themselves against tyranny from the Government.

It's hard to protect yourself against fully automatic weapons when You're relegated to using single shot weapons or muzzle loaders. I know that currently we are allowed to use weapons with larger capacities than this but if we allow them to continue defining exactly WHAT we're allowed to possess then we could see in the future that we can possess nothing more than muzzle loaders and still retain our "right" to bear arms.

Reply to post by Grimpachi

I wouldn't mind it.

I lived within range of a silo for quite a while and the idea of a neighbor owning one upsets me far less than this government owning one.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

"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

The "real" purpose for someone to possess automatic weapons would be to protect themselves against tyranny from the Government.

It's hard to protect yourself against fully automatic weapons when You're relegated to using single shot weapons or muzzle loaders. I know that currently we are allowed to use weapons with larger capacities than this but if we allow them to continue defining exactly WHAT we're allowed to possess then we could see in the future that we can possess nothing more than muzzle loaders and still retain our "right" to bear arms.

As a former member of the army and later ANG it was the duty of the guard to do just that. Each individual state has a national guard that has a responcibility to protect its citizens from such tyranny and besides that I never met a soldier that would participate in a action like what you are talking about. The differance is the military is trained with such weapons where they are not a danger to themselfs. M2s tanks fighter aircraft and so forth should not be in the hands of the civillian populace.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I wouldn't mind it.

I lived within range of a silo for quite a while and the idea of a neighbor owning one upsets me far less than this government owning one.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Sure and lets give hand grenades to children. I assume you are not seriouse at least I hope that is the case.

Reply to post by Grimpachi

So the national guard training for confiscation in New York and Iowa and actively participating in confiscation in Louisiana didn't happen or happened to protect those people from tyranny?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Grimpachi

I'm absolutely serious.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about.