The Second Amendment, everything you need to know.

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Have you ever wondered why we have a second amendment? Do you feel it is relative today? In this video we put together I give a somewhat apolitical history and reasoning behind the Second Amendment.





posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by LibertysTeeth
 


"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." Recognize that?

What I don't get is why conservatives demand orthodoxy to the words in the Bible but when it comes to the second amendment, they pull meaning from whatever source is convenient. The hypocrisy is revolting.

"...Enumerates your right to self defense? How the F do you add that to this single sentence? It's really a simple sentence with a clear and unambiguous meaning. Just admit it --gunners are a new age religion. 100% faith based belief system not requiring facts, logic or reason.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Your post is the communicative equivalent to placing your fingers in your ears, sticking out your tongue and saying "nah nah nah nah nah nah"

A++ for being completely ludicrous and totally serious at the same time. That must take tremendous amounts of concentration.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 

Well you're right about one thing...
The people are guaranteed the right to bear arms.
It shall not be infringed.

Not, you can only have certain arms, in certain places,, with limited capacity.
That would be an infringement.

Pretty freakin simple.




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
So where does it say self defense? I only see defense of the state. And no I am not a gun grabber.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 



What I don't get is why conservatives demand orthodoxy to the words in the Bible but when it comes to the second amendment, they pull meaning from whatever source is convenient. The hypocrisy is revolting.


Conservatives didn’t make that determination…the SCOTUS did.

Take it up with them, wise one.


… the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
District of Columbia v Heller



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
infringement:
Back ground check, proving your innocent when being looked upon as being guilty.
Having to pay a TAX and fill,out more paper work to own a full auto.
Being told you can have x amount of rounds, or types of rounds. .
Having to take a class to carry under clothing..
Being restricted on where you can go and carry.
Not having the right to make modifications to a fire arm.

Your for it as a whole, or your not, you want the right, then defend it as it is written! Not pick it and just be for one class type or law and say yes i am a defender of the 2nd, there should be no class no tax no sub class BATF 3 or 2 nor 1 and no law, nor should you have to prove your innocent. This is not the way it is written nor was intended to be, TPTB let it and you the voter let it be what it is today is weak and just about dead, not only the 2nd but others as well.

just my view of it all.
edit on 25-4-2013 by bekod because: line edit



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by LibertysTeeth
 


"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." Recognize that?


The security of a FREE STATE is referring to all elements w/in that state including WE the people. Our ability to defend ourselves contributes to the "STATE"

Without "WE THE PEOPLE" there is no state.

It's very fundamental.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Havok I've got another type of infringement for you. Being a felon. You can be a felon for almost anything these days it seems, and afterwards you cannot vote (big deal doesn't matter anyways) and you can never own a firearm, go into a store where guns or ammo are sold, or be in a house or vehicle where someone's transporting guns or ammo. I thought after you're release from prison or parole or probation you had paid your debts to society and you were supposed to be able to resume a normal life. That's not the case. There's one congressman who finally brought it up and he happens to be from my state of Oklahoma. But if you ask me, that's definitely infringement.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by soundguy
So where does it say self defense? I only see defense of the state. And no I am not a gun grabber.


You've got it backwards. We are a Republic, government serves the people, each a sovereign. The people are not supposed to be inferior to government.

The intent behind the 2a was defense of the people by the people against tyrannical government.

Militias were/are the people defending themselves, not protecting the government.

Really though it doesn't matter what the weapons are used for, the right, recognized by the 2a, shall not be infringed.


In The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by LibertysTeeth
 


"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." Recognize that?

What I don't get is why conservatives demand orthodoxy to the words in the Bible but when it comes to the second amendment, they pull meaning from whatever source is convenient. The hypocrisy is revolting.

"...Enumerates your right to self defense? How the F do you add that to this single sentence? It's really a simple sentence with a clear and unambiguous meaning. Just admit it --gunners are a new age religion. 100% faith based belief system not requiring facts, logic or reason.


Quote ""...Enumerates your right to self defense? How the F do you add that to this single sentence? It's really a simple sentence with a clear and unambiguous meaning. Just admit it --gunners are a new age religion. 100% faith based belief system not requiring facts, logic or reason."

If I'm reading you properly, I say hogwash. _gunners are a new age religion. It seems in vogue for liberals to try to force the title on anything contrary to their agenda and has no real meaning other than hyperbole in a negative way. By saying "Just admit it" you infer those who uphold the second amendment as deficient in their resolve, and are in some way waffling.
edit on 26-4-2013 by Plotus because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4

log in

join