Right to Bear Arms.

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Go Friken read the OP. OMG. THE GUN CONTROL LAWS? What else would I be talking about? Of course you wouldn't even attempt to guess. Have you no deductive reasoning? Or trollers, be trolling?

Goodbye. Next time you comment on ANYONE'S thread. Read the OP.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 

dude, you are so full of bull that it would be nice if you proved this ...

But here, the automatics are used in drive by's
... not ever on record in this country but you are free to prove it, please.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I'ts called a hypothetical?

Imma about to report you two if you don't stop. C'mon. Ask for the sources of common sense or something like that. Try me. I called someone stupid and lost points. EVERYTHING has a penalty.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 

uh, no, that wasn't a hypothetical, that was pure BS and you know it.

report me for what ?
calling you out on your misleading caca ?

so, where's your source ??
oh, that's right, it's just a figment of your imagination ... kinda like the rest of your commentary in this thread, huh ?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Yes, that's why.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 


Mr. Myth Fury,

You began a thread titled Right to Bear Arms.

This right is enumerated in the bill of rights.

This right speaks to the inherent and inalienable right of self defense.

Your verbilizations on this thread remind me of a poem i learned in grade school

"Around and around the mulberry bush
the monkey chased the weasel
the monkey thought it was a joke
pop goes the weasel."



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
I hear a lot of people saying, "It's against the Second Amendment to take our guns!", "they can take them from my cold, dead hands", or my favorite "that's unconstitutional!"


Maybe I am a glutton here for even attempting this but I take it this is what you are asking then? From your OP; is this the question? "Is it unconstitutional for the Government to take firearms away from citizens?" If it isn't then please clarify and maybe we can actually get to what your point is.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Disregard the most previous reply to you again. It's pretty clear unless, like I said, you have no deductive reasoning. Why are you reading the OP like it's a question you can shed light on? I asked you, YOU, a question in the replies. Not the OP. Just saying, youre so far deep in the hole, you made a home down there. Have fun with this thread, because I'm not. You just don't know how to converse properly, man. Work on that. Or ignore it. Your choice. Duecies.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 


Not meaning to inflame a
situation here but either you
flunked American Government
in High School, or you are not
an American.

Three branches of the US government
1. Executive--President and his appointed cabinet.
2. Legislative--House of Represenatives and Congress
3. Judicial--Supreme court.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


I aced Dual-Credit Government and Dual-Credit Economics. Along with Criminal Law and psychology college experience. I know my shtuff. You guys are literally saying the same thing over and over. Stop posting on the same thread and do something with yourself.

Go look up the details and go down "the rabbit hole", that is Paralegals. read what the attorney general does in the presidents cabinet. And read the details on the Heller case. Look at the system within a Supreme Court hearing. Just do it, and even if you don't, oh well. Have a good one, bro!

Mods, can you close this thread since there is nothing beneficial coming from it besides the same information I already know? That'd be cool.
edit on 4-2-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Look up the definition of inalienable right.
This means the right exists by nature/natural law and is
not conferred, granted, given, bequeathed, permitted, licensed,
registered, deeded, guaranteed, or any other earthly convection.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
Look up the definition of inalienable right.
This means the right exists by nature/natural law and is
not conferred, granted, given, bequeathed, permitted, licensed,
registered, deeded, guaranteed, or any other earthly convection.


How can you have a right existing by nature/natural law to a man made artifact only invented in the last few centuries ?

Fact is that the 2nd amendment was written on paper by human beings just over 200 years ago. It didn't come out of a burning bush and wasn't delivered carved in stone to a mountain top.

While I see lots of energy expended on inalienable right there seems to be a deafening silence about a well regulated militia.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


How can you have a right existing by nature/natural law to a man made artifact only invented in the last few centuries ?

The natural law is the "right to defend oneself"

Fact is that the 2nd amendment was written on paper by human beings just over 200 years ago. It didn't come out of a burning bush and wasn't delivered carved in stone to a mountain top.

It came from the minds and experience of several men (founding fathers).

While I see lots of energy expended on inalienable right there seems to be a deafening silence about a well regulated militia.

Silence is not deafening, because it cannot be heard, but you borrowed the phrase from some previous writer to make your point. So you relied on the experience and knowledge and wisdom of a member of the previous generation for your cryptic comment? Well we in America rely on the wisdom and intelligence of men who actually threw off overbearing dictatorship by force 200 plus years ago. Lots of your relatives died at the hands of these men.

I even think it was the British in England that lost the war.
Guess you don't learn from the mistakes of the previous generation.

Me, I am irish and it is glad to see the bloodshed the british foisted on the irish to come to an end.
edit on 8-2-2013 by slugger9787 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 


Good for your education attempts.
You get a degree or did you quit half way or less through?

So you create yourself as an authority in the area of LAW and CRIME
and pontificate to lower caste beings about our stupidity.

When and if the SHTF I expect you to humbly
carry ammo to the MEN and WOMEN in the front lines.

Here is a great link that bears on what I am referring to:

boldanddetermined.com...

edit on 9-2-2013 by slugger9787 because: remove non working link



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by Honor93
 


I'ts called a hypothetical?

Imma about to report you two if you don't stop. C'mon. Ask for the sources of common sense or something like that. Try me. I called someone stupid and lost points. EVERYTHING has a penalty.


anonym.to...://dontmarry.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/the-pussification-of-the-american-male/

good article on what has evolved



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


good
second line



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
The United States Constitution was written for the common man to understand. The issue of the second amendment was not if there was a right to keep and to bear arms, but whether that right could be infringed. They concluded that because there was a need for civilian defense and the right to self defense, therefore the right (which they acknowledged they already had) could not be infringed.

Regulation, tracking devices, and other burdens are just that, infringements.

The right was enshrined to put fear in government that if it tried to exert tyranny, that tyranny would be met with powerful and robust resistance making it useless to attempt. In societies where only the government had the guns, the end result was oppression. Where they don't have guns, and as of yet are not oppressed, they are on the way to oppression.

Any attempt to take away the right to keep and bear arms would be unconstitutional and would almost guarantee a second American revolution. Those are not my words but the words of experts.




edit on 24-2-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 

sorry, couldn't access the link ... all i got was ...
"You're in violation of Kim's copyrights.
Either take it down or excerpt it by using Fair Use."

although, the title does sound familiar ... i may have read it previously ?

anyway, i would tend to agree with the premise.
it's not anything new by the way ... it's been progressing longer than tvs have been on the shelves.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Im sorry about not getting involved in making yourselves into say what i said in the OP. I seriously laughed and reread them because its really funny. I had along string of events that have been going on for a couple years that I am getting more involved in. Did some public service, and attended rallies to fight corruption in corporations while donating $5,000 so we can keep doing this, not to mention, im about to start a lawsuit with representatives of corporations for their neglect of people feelings as they just "do what they are told". Im going to be doing stuff actually contributing to something I want, not contributing to a way of life that isnt the same as when it started, and has failed multiple times again. Democracy in rome failed. And we are on the same...EXACT...path. Look it up, or take a refresher course at your closest learning annex.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
While I see lots of energy expended on inalienable right there seems to be a deafening silence about a well regulated militia.


What is there to say about it? In DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual right to keep and bear arms had no connection to militia service. You can argue that they got it wrong if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that its the law of the land until such time that the Court revisits it, if they ever do.

Dang it...I didn't realize this was an old thread dragged back to the top of the board.
edit on 1-6-2013 by vor78 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join