The second ammendment is not required until they try and take it away

They are coming for your guns America. This is not about Sandy Hook, this is not about any previous mass shootings. The American government has more blood on it's hands than the public ever will and once they have your guns they will turn on you. Obama has been on this mission ever since he first took office. Now that he is in his second term of office he is ready to take the heat. Obama is a traitor and an imposter and you invited him in and it is now up to you to kick him out.

He has lied through his teeth every step of the way. Do you believe that he really cares about the children's lives that were lost at Sandy Hook? With his speech he never once mentioned why the second ammendement exists, he did mention that people will claim that a tyrannical government is trying to take our guns. You people have no idea what tyranny is, but you will after you give up your guns, that I can guarantee. If you love your children and your children's children then DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN.

Do not let this lieing, cheating, murderous, villainous, phsycopath destroy the second ammendment. The second ammendment gives power to the people and stops the government from overreaching. I do have a concern that once American citizens end up being unarmed like most of the other western countries (Switzerland being an exception) that is when they will make their move. If they made their move in Australia or great Britain before they take the guns from Americans then there is no way they could achieve what they want to achieve. They need to get the guns from American citizens before they make their final move.

For the sake of us over here in Australia and for the sake of those in Europe and Great Britain please don't give up your guns.

There is like 1000000000 million other threads on this.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
There is like 1000000000 million other threads on this.

Now there is 1000000001.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Your thread title is wrong. The premise behind the 2nd Amendment is always required, as a free born person. We have the natural right to protect ourselves and our property from whatever threat is presented.

Does not a bear utilize its claws to defend its cubs? Furthering that argument, if a bear could utilize a better method of protecting its life and prosperity, should it be denied because it is "deadly"?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Your thread title is wrong. The premise behind the 2nd Amendment is always required, as a free born person. We have the natural right to protect ourselves and our property from whatever threat is presented.

Does not a bear utilize its claws to defend its cubs? Furthering that argument, if a bear could utilize a better method of protecting its life and prosperity, should it be denied because it is "deadly"?

You miss the point entirely.


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


I missed nothing. The ideal behind the second amendment was that of self-preservation and fits in with the three basic tenants of Natural Rights: Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Without the ability to actually protect yourself (the 2nd Amendment), you cannot secure the others. So it is always required as a free born human being; regardless if it is "needed" or not; or in this case, if it is being threatened to be taken away.

Trust me, I am on your side on this but Jefferson for all his greatness was hardly a statesman and advocated bloodshed while sitting upon his alter in Monticello..

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

I missed nothing. The ideal behind the second amendment was that of self-preservation and fits in with the three basic tenants of Natural Rights: Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Without the ability to actually protect yourself (the 2nd Amendment), you cannot secure the others. So it is always required as a free born human being; regardless if it is "needed" or not; or in this case, if it is being threatened to be taken away.

Trust me, I am on your side on this but Jefferson for all his greatness was hardly a statesman and advocated bloodshed while sitting upon his alter in Monticello..

Okay.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


First off . . . I'm a Jefferson fan and 2nd supporter, but in interest of the truth . . .

A quote, "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it", attributed in the book by Matt Carson to Thomas Jefferson, has been considered false, not found prior to 2007[17].

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


You good sir are WRONG!!

The 2nd ammendment is the right to bear arms, NOT the right to bear whatever arms the government dictates!!

It is my RIGHT to buy whatever gun and whatever magazine I want at any time for any reason!!

THAT is the 2nd ammendment!

Originally posted by WaterBottle
There is like 1000000000 million other threads on this.

And all needed.