Right to bears Arms?

reply to post by TDawgRex


are you sure?
is that why its written that way?

I can
I do
nuff said!!

reply to post by rebellender


I stand by my statement in this case.

I know plenty of folk in the military who would refuse to fire upon American citizens,,,unless of course fired upon. But I imagine that there are some who would.

C'mon Reb, this ain't Syria.

reply to post by TDawgRex


and because I can and because I do,
It never will.

I pray every day they never come out of the safe.

C Ya

Right to bears arms?

Dude - I really don't think you want to try to take any bears arms. I do believe they're called "paws" also.

reply to post by Zinky


I thought it was funneh

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
I need to see where it states specifically that gun owners are allowed to have as much guns or have as many type of guns. they can handle?

If it is not in the constitution..then you lose...the law is about specifics..if it is not in there,,,then you lose.

All you little men might actually have to man up..poor families...got you to defend them...not much to depend on..

edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can

I just caught this and I'll get to the thread after....but I'm replying to the OP directly here.

The Constitution doesn't work that way and was absolutely never meant to. It's not a matter of 'what isn't listed is up for grabs to ban'. That applies across all the amendments. You can't say because a Nazi Parade down Main Street in Skokie, Illinois wasn't specifically permitted ...or to be a little less whimsical about it, that hate speech wasn't specifically protected, that they can't have their Parade. In fact, they did get their Parade in what became a true Landmark Example of how the most detestable speech IS protected .....despite that not being spelled out as such.

Similarly then with the 2nd amendment. There need not be a subsection listing which arms or types are intended, and the papers and supporting reasoning of the founding fathers makes their intent clear anyway. The equal footing of the citizenry to the Government made up by and for those same citizens was implied and directly formed the basis of the Amendment being written. That part...IS clearly written.

Beyond that.... DC v. Heller (2009) held the right to be individual and NOT dependent upon membership or connection to a 'Well Regulated Militia' in the form of any organization or Government entity. Then they gave every gun owner the largest present we could have asked for in clarity of our rights. They incorporated the Second Amendment. That meant that it was to apply equally to State down to Local government equally as it applied to the Federal Government.

That last part is how a case in D.C. and half way across the nation from Chicago or clear across from San Francisco basically obliterated their efforts to ban ownership. Incorporation was a beautiful thing to have done and about 200 years late in coming, to be frank.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
I need to see where it states specifically that gun owners are allowed to have as much guns or have as many type of guns. they can handle?

If it is not in the constitution..then you lose...the law is about specifics..if it is not in there,,,then you lose.

All you little men might actually have to man up..poor families...got you to defend them...not much to depend on..

edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can

I just caught this and I'll get to the thread after....but I'm replying to the OP directly here.

The Constitution doesn't work that way and was absolutely never meant to. It's not a matter of 'what isn't listed is up for grabs to ban'. That applies across all the amendments. You can't say because a Nazi Parade down Main Street in Skokie, Illinois wasn't specifically permitted ...or to be a little less whimsical about it, that hate speech wasn't specifically protected, that they can't have their Parade. In fact, they did get their Parade in what became a true Landmark Example of how the most detestable speech IS protected .....despite that not being spelled out as such.

Similarly then with the 2nd amendment. There need not be a subsection listing which arms or types are intended, and the papers and supporting reasoning of the founding fathers makes their intent clear anyway. The equal footing of the citizenry to the Government made up by and for those same citizens was implied and directly formed the basis of the Amendment being written. That part...IS clearly written.

Beyond that.... DC v. Heller (2009) held the right to be individual and NOT dependent upon membership or connection to a 'Well Regulated Militia' in the form of any organization or Government entity. Then they gave every gun owner the largest present we could have asked for in clarity of our rights. They incorporated the Second Amendment. That meant that it was to apply equally to State down to Local government equally as it applied to the Federal Government.

That last part is how a case in D.C. and half way across the nation from Chicago or clear across from San Francisco basically obliterated their efforts to ban ownership. Incorporation was a beautiful thing to have done and about 200 years late in coming, to be frank.

Well said. I was alluding to it, but you spelled it out. Thank you.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Originally posted by Doc Gator
. The government can not change ANY part of the Constitution as they see fit. That requires a Constitutional amendment. Your logic is fatally flawed on this one.

Does the law tell you what kind of car you can drive? Does it spell out what color it must be? Does it limit how many you can own?

Fine..but does the same law you quote..state what type of gun you can own..and how many types of guns you can own?

Does it not give leeway as to what can be defined? Also show me...WHERE IT STATES THE OPEN CARRY LAW..SPECIFICS is what I need

It states that. It is a citizens duty that if the power of the government exceeds it powers given then it is a duty to overthrow said government and reform that overreaching powered government. They are to work for the people not against us, in the end THEY WILL LOSE.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Well said and succinctly put.

And I had no idea your name was Frank, or are you just emulating him?.

I thought this thread was going to be about:

This argument has been made before and it will be made again in the future.

Clearly everyone has their own opinion on what is deemed 'arms.
Even the Government has it's own definition.

Here in Australia, that is anything from a kitchen knife to sling shot and from a BB gun to a howitzer.

As can be seen, I am Australian.
However I agree and approve of the American Constitution.
The way "I" read the 2nd Amendment is thus;

The right to bear arms equal to those you bear them against.

Meaning that in order to defend against and defeat a tyrannical government, you need to bring to the table what they can.
So that means you are within your rights to own and use (IF NEEDED), all manner of modern day weapons.
From snub nose 38's to Nuclear Bunker Busters.

If you have the means and the ability, your government should FEAR YOU. Not the other way around.
If that means you need a nuclear deterrent, then so be it.

That is what the 2nd Amendment is for.

reply to post by Sovaka

I gotta say, as much as I may have captured the legal argument, you got the spirit of it! This, from a person who doesn't live here and wasn't raised within the American system. It's interesting to hear put so clearly when so many who were raised with American civics and Gov't classes in school can't get on the same page with things.

(borrow's a little star from 'Ol Glory to lend your post... )

reply to post by Doc Gator


Exactly.

Couldn't have explained it better myself.

Basically the Constitution isn't really for the people it's really written for the government. It's supposed to give certain rights to the government and lets them know what they are allowed to do.

If a power is not expressly granted by the Constitution to the federal government it them that power falls to the states.

So if it does not specifically give the government the power to do something the actually don't have the authority to meddle there.

There are very very few powers actually given to them but they pass laws and legislation by "interpreting" what the Constitution means.

Obama's Healthcare legislation for example.

I support our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. As many as I can. I open carry allmost everywhere I go. I do it because of people who fit the profile of your screen name .It's the crazy sicko's that cause folks like me to exercise my right to bear arms. Plus corrupt politicians, murder's, rapist, home-invaders , and a Gov gone Gestapo.

It's been explained very well as to why we can accumulate as much as we want.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


I think it is rather obvious. The term "arms" is what defines what an individual can use. There are no specifics because "arms" can refer to anything that one chooses to use as a weapon.

In regards to your open carry demand: The word "bear" is what is important. "Bear" in this context means to brandish, to carry, to display.

So there you have it. Like I said, rather obvious.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Your just trolling.
second line

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
I need to see where it states specifically that gun owners are allowed to have as much guns or have as many type of guns. they can handle?

If it is not in the constitution..then you lose...the law is about specifics..if it is not in there,,,then you lose.

All you little men might actually have to man up..poor families...got you to defend them...not much to depend on..

edit on 26-8-2012 by kerazeesicko because: I can

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

SAID and DONE! We have the God given right and regardless of what any law or imbecile says it is our right and duty as American citizens to properly own and protect our communities and nation from threats both foreign and domestic. Our forefathers understood the consequences and threats of an oppressive government . with that being said the only way to ensure that the government cannot and will not abuse its people is to make sure the people are well armed and educated in the defense of their homes and communities.

Enuff said!

It was enjoyable to see this thread get thrown in the Rant bin (from Weapons) because it was simply set-up to troll from the start.

All the OP has accomplished is to leave child minded insults and repetitively ask the same questions... no matter how many times that members went out of their way to best answer her (OP).

If you (kerazeesicko) are really not on an agenda or blinded with your own hate/fear, why not try to understand 2nd amendment enthusiasts instead of just insulting them?

Although, you seem to be European/foreigner. If true, you have very little hope of ever truly grasping the very questions you are even asking, never mind the answers to those questions (which members have repeatedly tried explaining to you but in vain).

The American gun culture, our Constitution and way of life is completely alien to you, just as your culture's indoctrinated fear & hate of firearms is thankfully the same to us.


.
..

I thought this thread was about the right to own the severed arms of bears.


what a jip, ... im out of here.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
reply to post by Doc Gator

 

The legal system is about specifics...that is how lawyers win..loopholes about specifics.

Here is your problem. You are thinking like a lawyer, not a normal person.

You ever look at the constitution of the newest formed nations? They can be hundreds of pages or more. You know how many pages the US Constitution with the Bill of RIghts are? 6. Let's just say you typed it out in a modern word processing program, you would probably reach 12 pages.

The founders didn't practice the legalese that the modern bloodsuckers do. They believed that most people had common sense. You approached this topic trying to find an angle or technicality. You know who uses angles and technicalities? Salesmen, politicians and lawyers. The second is really nothing more than a subdivision of the first. The later two of those are responsible for the downfall of the nation and the erosion of freedom.

Additionally, you do realize that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not rights granted by the government. Right? They were considered the natural rights of free men and were written to prevent the government from trying to encroach and eliminate such rights. Do you think we are living up to that expectation?

That is all I think needs to be said that directly answers your challenge here. As for why they included that right guarantee you can see the many other threads that I have tried to educate people on the topic.