A group of colonialists farmers led by George Washington had just defeated the world's mightiest military (British), so the 2d amendment (passed in 1791) sought to protect us from any future tyrannical government. It simply states: “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”. That’s it. It has totally outlived its usefulness and meaning. Could these same NRA people defend themselves against the nuclear bombs in today's world? Do you hunt with pistols or automatic assault weapons? I think not. Prostitution of the 2d amendment wording should end. Maybe pistol packers’ incarceration for local prostitution statues (prostitution of 2d amendment intent) are in order.
Where are the pro-life people on this? Here’s one, and I'm incoherent with sadness. Can't we all just get along??
Tyranny of the sort anyone wishing to limit the Second Amendment is supporting takes much more than weapons of mass destruction. It takes boots on the ground, in your home, on the street corner and in the field.
In short it takes individual soldiers armed with rifles enforcing it on a daily basis. Weapons of mass destruction won't do it as they destroy what the tyrants wish to control.
A population of Free Peoples need only protect themselves from those who would support tyranny individually. This is why all dictators move to ban the citizens of firearms and individual weapons. That is where the real power of freedom resides. With the individual willing to protect himself.
Perhaps to some giving up and living under tyranny is acceptable. They would give up their freedom for an illusion of safety and entitlement since they would not protect that freedom themselves anyway. That's fine to each his or her own but don't bring the rest of us down into your level of servitude and meek acceptance of tyranny.
A woman at Columbine supplied some of the weapons, a woman at Sandy Hook supplied the weapons, and a women supplied some of the weapons in the firemans deaths last week? I am not after women, I am after people who knowingly buy, or supply guns for other people? The laws need to be alot longer than 10 years for falsification of gun paper work. The paper work starts with the question, are you the actual buyer of the gun, YES OR NO? There is some responcibility that goes with that question, male or female! In Syria the problem that was clearly evident was that Assad was using his military to supress his rebel insurrection, he had a full military with at the least fully automatic weapons? The rebel were fighting with their rag tag force with bolt action weapons, or single shot weapons? I do not support the USA to be their supplier, but rather I am showing an example of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed", and that is why we have a second ammendment , and it was Flintlocks back in 1791. Rob
The American Revolution clearly shows that the power of freedom lies with the individual willing to protect that freedom and able to meet the oppressor as an equal using the same individual weapons.
Weapons of mass destruction are not the key but individual weapons of defense in the hands of the people are. As is being shown over and over again.
Today's rebellions are being supplied with automatic firearms and using captured weapons more than anything else. Libya had a strong contingent of government troops that switched sides and took their arms with them.
I would like someone to define "assault weapon". Automatic weapons have been banned for years. What are the liberals trying to take away now? A baseball bat could easily be used as an "assault weapon".
Looking at it in past-tense, it would be anything used to assault someone else. It can be anything.
The government must ban everything in our lives, from pencils to automobiles to buses and yes even baseball bats. We can't be trusted to be responsible law-abiding members of society, to have good morals and understand the difference between right and wrong.
JCLIfer, I don't know if this is the accurate or correct terminology, but to me, an assault weapon is a gun that is designed for anything other than hunting animals. You don't need huge magazine clips to go deer hunting. It's something that allows you to rapidly discharge the trigger without reloading, something that looks military in style and has NO good use other than so called "target shooting". Handguns and deer rifles, fine, they should work just peachy for that home invasion scenario that the gun lovers tout on and on about, or to stop a robbery etc. No one needs anything that you can put more than 5 bullets in, if you have to stop and reload that makes it awfully inconvenient to blow away a mass number of people quickly.
However as protection against the non-two legged predators there are many scenarios that routinely require semi-automatic rifles of a type the military prefer in similar scenarios. Feral and wild dogs around livestock for instance.
Ever seen what a pack of wild dogs can do to a calf in a very short time?
Feral hogs for another. Ever seen how fast they can scatter?
Home invasions on the other hand are rarely one criminal per house either. Usually there are three or more and at very short range when they are engaged. Five round capacity for your weapon leaves little room for error or time for defensive reaction and cycling a bolt takes time you won't have.
Home invasions are more a likely prospect for rural and agricultural properties who have more area to protect and much longer police response times and therefore different needs than your standard city dweller.
South Africa and Rhodesia banned firearms and guess which group is now murdered and attacked daily now?
No, your definition is NOT accurate nor is the terminology correct. However, you did write your thoughts and made it clear that you believe my rights and the rights of others (that pesky 2nd amendment thingy), should be limited because of your feelings.
Who cares how many rounds a clip can hold? 5/10/50? Clips can be changed very quickly. Not sure what jeffcitygirl meant about a clip "rapidly discharging the trigger", but I am very convinced that liberals do not know what they are talking about when referring to basic firearm terminology and operation. They misuse the word "automatic" frequently, and they seem to be obsessed with the color and material of the stock. Plastic/camo is bad. Engraved walnut is good. It scares me that these people want to create and vote on laws that affect others, but they don't even know what they are voting on. I am convinced these are the same people who voted for Obama and Obamacare.
I am not a huge gun nut. I have a few weapons and enough ammunition on hand to put up a decent defense to protect my family and property for a while until the SWAT team can be assembled and get here. However I will fight until the end to protect other citizens' rights to own whatever weapons and ammunition they feel they need for their pritextion, and I am damn glad I know several of these "gun nuts" who love and who will fight to the end to protect our freedoms.
Subscribe
Shop Local
Today's Poll!
Gas Prices
Magazine | 
Marry Me
Comments
orieke 4 months, 3 weeks ago
A group of colonialists farmers led by George Washington had just defeated the world's mightiest military (British), so the 2d amendment (passed in 1791) sought to protect us from any future tyrannical government. It simply states: “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”. That’s it. It has totally outlived its usefulness and meaning. Could these same NRA people defend themselves against the nuclear bombs in today's world? Do you hunt with pistols or automatic assault weapons? I think not. Prostitution of the 2d amendment wording should end. Maybe pistol packers’ incarceration for local prostitution statues (prostitution of 2d amendment intent) are in order. Where are the pro-life people on this? Here’s one, and I'm incoherent with sadness. Can't we all just get along??
Otto Rieke
connor 4 months, 3 weeks ago
Tyranny of the sort anyone wishing to limit the Second Amendment is supporting takes much more than weapons of mass destruction. It takes boots on the ground, in your home, on the street corner and in the field.
In short it takes individual soldiers armed with rifles enforcing it on a daily basis. Weapons of mass destruction won't do it as they destroy what the tyrants wish to control.
A population of Free Peoples need only protect themselves from those who would support tyranny individually. This is why all dictators move to ban the citizens of firearms and individual weapons. That is where the real power of freedom resides. With the individual willing to protect himself.
Perhaps to some giving up and living under tyranny is acceptable. They would give up their freedom for an illusion of safety and entitlement since they would not protect that freedom themselves anyway. That's fine to each his or her own but don't bring the rest of us down into your level of servitude and meek acceptance of tyranny.
RobHunterJohnson 4 months, 3 weeks ago
A woman at Columbine supplied some of the weapons, a woman at Sandy Hook supplied the weapons, and a women supplied some of the weapons in the firemans deaths last week? I am not after women, I am after people who knowingly buy, or supply guns for other people? The laws need to be alot longer than 10 years for falsification of gun paper work. The paper work starts with the question, are you the actual buyer of the gun, YES OR NO? There is some responcibility that goes with that question, male or female! In Syria the problem that was clearly evident was that Assad was using his military to supress his rebel insurrection, he had a full military with at the least fully automatic weapons? The rebel were fighting with their rag tag force with bolt action weapons, or single shot weapons? I do not support the USA to be their supplier, but rather I am showing an example of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed", and that is why we have a second ammendment , and it was Flintlocks back in 1791. Rob
connor 4 months, 3 weeks ago
Flintlocks for all.
The American Revolution clearly shows that the power of freedom lies with the individual willing to protect that freedom and able to meet the oppressor as an equal using the same individual weapons.
Weapons of mass destruction are not the key but individual weapons of defense in the hands of the people are. As is being shown over and over again.
Today's rebellions are being supplied with automatic firearms and using captured weapons more than anything else. Libya had a strong contingent of government troops that switched sides and took their arms with them.
JCLifer 4 months, 3 weeks ago
I would like someone to define "assault weapon". Automatic weapons have been banned for years. What are the liberals trying to take away now? A baseball bat could easily be used as an "assault weapon".
yamahamian 4 months, 3 weeks ago
Looking at it in past-tense, it would be anything used to assault someone else. It can be anything.
The government must ban everything in our lives, from pencils to automobiles to buses and yes even baseball bats. We can't be trusted to be responsible law-abiding members of society, to have good morals and understand the difference between right and wrong.
RobHunterJohnson 4 months, 3 weeks ago
A Lead Pipe, Knife, or a Box Cutter! Rob
jeffcitygirl 4 months, 3 weeks ago
JCLIfer, I don't know if this is the accurate or correct terminology, but to me, an assault weapon is a gun that is designed for anything other than hunting animals. You don't need huge magazine clips to go deer hunting. It's something that allows you to rapidly discharge the trigger without reloading, something that looks military in style and has NO good use other than so called "target shooting". Handguns and deer rifles, fine, they should work just peachy for that home invasion scenario that the gun lovers tout on and on about, or to stop a robbery etc. No one needs anything that you can put more than 5 bullets in, if you have to stop and reload that makes it awfully inconvenient to blow away a mass number of people quickly.
connor 4 months, 3 weeks ago
The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
However as protection against the non-two legged predators there are many scenarios that routinely require semi-automatic rifles of a type the military prefer in similar scenarios. Feral and wild dogs around livestock for instance.
Ever seen what a pack of wild dogs can do to a calf in a very short time?
Feral hogs for another. Ever seen how fast they can scatter?
Home invasions on the other hand are rarely one criminal per house either. Usually there are three or more and at very short range when they are engaged. Five round capacity for your weapon leaves little room for error or time for defensive reaction and cycling a bolt takes time you won't have.
Home invasions are more a likely prospect for rural and agricultural properties who have more area to protect and much longer police response times and therefore different needs than your standard city dweller.
South Africa and Rhodesia banned firearms and guess which group is now murdered and attacked daily now?
John 4 months, 3 weeks ago
No, your definition is NOT accurate nor is the terminology correct. However, you did write your thoughts and made it clear that you believe my rights and the rights of others (that pesky 2nd amendment thingy), should be limited because of your feelings.
JCLifer 4 months, 3 weeks ago
Who cares how many rounds a clip can hold? 5/10/50? Clips can be changed very quickly. Not sure what jeffcitygirl meant about a clip "rapidly discharging the trigger", but I am very convinced that liberals do not know what they are talking about when referring to basic firearm terminology and operation. They misuse the word "automatic" frequently, and they seem to be obsessed with the color and material of the stock. Plastic/camo is bad. Engraved walnut is good. It scares me that these people want to create and vote on laws that affect others, but they don't even know what they are voting on. I am convinced these are the same people who voted for Obama and Obamacare.
I am not a huge gun nut. I have a few weapons and enough ammunition on hand to put up a decent defense to protect my family and property for a while until the SWAT team can be assembled and get here. However I will fight until the end to protect other citizens' rights to own whatever weapons and ammunition they feel they need for their pritextion, and I am damn glad I know several of these "gun nuts" who love and who will fight to the end to protect our freedoms.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID