Where does the right to bear arms start and finish?

We gave you the right to bear arms and the power to meet justice rise go amend with
your amendments keep them honour them and merry christmas ...

Originally posted by redbarron626
reply to post by angrysniper

 

I was responding to you using the phrase 'are not covered.'

Which I will stand by! Biological weapons are NOT covered by the 2nd Amendment! Put any spin you want to on it but Biological weapons are NOT covered by the 2nd Amendment!

:shk:

It doesn't make any distinctions about the type of arms. You yourself admitted as much. Saying a particular type of weapon isn't covered is doublethink if at the same time you fully acknowledge it doesn't specify which types of arms it protects.

Originally posted by denver22

We gave you the right to bear arms and the power to meet justice rise go amend with
your amendments keep them honour them and merry christmas ...

No, you didn't "give" us any of our rights. The revolutionary war was fought BECAUSE the British monarchy sought to deprive us of those rights, among other things.

For it is the doom of men that they forget regarding the amendment's

To paraphrase... Anything not explicitly stated is then left to the states.. or the people. So in the context of bearing a firearm; if you can carry it you can own it.

The second was written when the musket was the pinnacle of technology at the time. The second starts where its says.

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 alpha and the omega rather simple concept to understand.

Basically what the antigun crowd wants is a 21st century government and a populace imprisioned in the 18th century.

Sheep ripe for the slaughter.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
To paraphrase... Anything not explicitly stated is then left to the states.. or the people. So in the context of bearing a firearm; if you can carry it you can own it.

I would go beyond that because canons were owned by individuals back then. I would say that artillery and explosives are within the purview of the second amendment. Certainly any weapon you can make yourself should be covered by the second which would include thermite, poison gasses, and plastic explosives among other things. The purpose of the second is to tell the government that they have no jurisdiction over our God given right to overthrow our government should it become tyrannical or for other necessary reasons.
Sheeple want to say "how can you fight their tanks"? I answer Thermite. "How can you fight their vast numbers"? I say guerrilla tactics, ieds, and poison gas. "How can you fight their superior weaponry"? Ambush one, take his gear and pass your less sophisticated gear to another. "How can you fight their aircraft"? FOD will take down any jet upon landing or take off. Mines, catapulted onto an airfield, there are many ways to fight a superior foe.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by boncho


Personally, I don't believe the US has come anywhere close to "A police state" as many would like to portray on the internet. Rife with inequality sure, unfair and unjust in many cases? Absolutely. Not the point where any use of arms by the citizen is justified. I think many on the net who claim they are fighting for their rights do an injustice unto themselves. For now, the changes in government and rule has all been done by political means. In some cases, corrupt political means.

The state does not have to show itself to be a police state in order to justify the 2nd. It is assumed in the bill of rights that all central power naturaly wants and unarmed and silent flock of sheep.

Having the right to bear arms and using that right as a use of force is two entirely different things. That should have been clear in my post.

Originally posted by angrysniper


No, you didn't "give" us any of our rights.

80% of the colonies were "British" at the time however, which way you look at it british
people gave you the rights..

P.S you didn't spring from knowhere, you were 'america' was colonized by predominantly british
people, and most of you still are and enough of this you brits- brits- brits, because most of you
are Of that decent.

Unless you are german french and the likes, however you "Speak the english...language too"..
No need to deny it it's getting mighty old now trying to deny your roots and highly comical
ignorant juvenile sir/mam..I love americans personally, merry christmas to all my american
freinds my colonial cousins peace...

The very cities towns counties are mostly taken from british places as well...

Originally posted by boncho
Personally, I don't believe the US has come anywhere close to "A police state" as many would like to portray on the internet.

America in view leans more towards a Technocratic Dystopia which a police state is only a portion of.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by boncho


Personally, I don't believe the US has come anywhere close to "A police state" as many would like to portray on the internet. Rife with inequality sure, unfair and unjust in many cases? Absolutely. Not the point where any use of arms by the citizen is justified. I think many on the net who claim they are fighting for their rights do an injustice unto themselves. For now, the changes in government and rule has all been done by political means. In some cases, corrupt political means.

The state does not have to show itself to be a police state in order to justify the 2nd. It is assumed in the bill of rights that all central power naturaly wants and unarmed and silent flock of sheep.

Having the right to bear arms and using that right as a use of force is two entirely different things. That should have been clear in my post.

Bear implies use. Keep implies availability. Both imply a condition outside of the purview and influence of the party in question....the government. Thus the infringement section. Both parts keep and bear shall be secured from government, executive, representative and judicial.

Recent Supreme Court decisions in 2008 & 2010 have decided:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

The United States is the greatest gift that England ever gave the world. The only danger is that the
English values that created the united states of america doesn't seem to be recognized by it's
own people who seem to deny they're own existance regarding just where (they came from) it
leaves us scratching our heads americans too who have accepted roots..



I'll stand by you anyday my band of brothers

Peace denver22

reply to post by denver22


You, my good man, are correct. The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England says "THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

We still have aircraft once flown in wars held by private individuals. One of the guys used to have an two seat F-104 and did airshows but think the bird was destroyed due to engine failure several years ago. Mig-15s-17s and maybe a few Mig-21s ( never saw them fly but spoke to the owner once)....F-86 sabers and one guy on the west coast had an F-5 wanna be. etc etc

Overtime what you could own came down to how much money you had. There have been those who owned private man of war ships in the old days and there are several armor type tracked vehicles in private hands today but not as many as there once was because of cost. Money is king when dealing with any of this stuff and no one has the printing capability of some government. Others have posted why the founders wrote the 2a and it's importance after the war of independence so no need for me to add something.. A utensil of war is?? Define?
Cars/trucks = bombs or battering rams

Remington 700 kills deer every year but used to be the preferred sniper rifle of many a military.

Airliners used to be used to carry passengers to a happy destination until 9/11.

Fertilizer was for growing stuff until Okla, City.

People and governments have a way of always finding a way to kill someone; it would seem many are quite versed in the taking of life and have no regrets with all matter of things never considered back in the day...Tasers used to be to stop someone now they have been used to stop someone's heart.
In a hundred years we may be back to sticks and stones; who knows? I guess we can sit around the old camp fire and argue the merits of a different length Atlatl best material to make one and why the Chief does not want us peons to have one?

One of the worse attacks in Japan was a dude and followers who mixed a batch of stuff up to do nothing but kill then released it in a Japanese train station. There are people who feel nothing for you and yours only how they can use you or if no use then stop breathing their air.

Right now are trying times for many Americans for various reasons. Can't wait for the happy new year for all!

Originally posted by FatherStacks
reply to post by denver22

 

You my good man are correct. The second amendment of the constitution was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England says "THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

Thanks my friend and merry christmas to you i mean that .

My intention was not to patronize anyone but to add, it seems you have added a most intelligent
post put well together to add thanks...

I posted the 1981 movie excalibur which actually depicts clues throughout the film to a
united state(S) and rights and so forth set out from an english perspective the film is
very unique in itself ..

reply to post by denver22


May we all find common ground in the coming months, instead of all this nonsensical country vs. country bickering that is prevailing as of late. Best wishes to you and yours this holiday season.

Originally posted by FatherStacks
reply to post by denver22

 

May we all find common ground in the coming months, instead of all this nonsensical country vs. country bickering that is prevailing as of late. Best wishes to you and yours this holiday season.

HEAR- HEAR same to you! your attitude is sound sir too.You are spot on about your posts on this
thread.If we were to ever dispand as brothers then the world will fall uk/us brotherhood must
continue..

Originally posted by FatherStacks
reply to post by denver22

 

You, my good man, are correct. The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England says "THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

edit on 27-12-2012 by FatherStacks because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2012 by FatherStacks because: (no reason given)

This is weak when lined up beside the 2nd. madison dumped all the bull crap out of this mess and just trimed it on down to the bone. He may have had it in mind but only to the point of what a mess it was. I will go as far as to say that if some had this in mind they couldnt wait to get out from under this punk idea of a natural right.

The 2nd has no room for allowance, such as are allowed by law, due restrictions, suitable condition and degree....bla bla bla. Blackstone still amounts to a pitchfork and ax sort of thing for the common man.

reply to post by Maxatoria

Traditionally "arms" meant weapons that could be hand (arm) borne by a soldier. Initially clubs and other melee weapons, then knives and swords along with spears and arrows then with the advent of gunpowder, firearms (as was the case in the time of The Revolutionary War). They had naval war vessels as well as cannon but the Second Amendment maintained a reference that was applicable to the militia (civilian infantry) not a naval or even artillery force. Tanks and fighter jets were a long way off but dont meet the standard of being carried in ones arms. One could however, justify automatic weapons and even some anti-tank weapons but that is subject to debate. Regular small arms as we know the term today; however, should be covered based on the original intent of our founders.