2 amendment right to bear arms - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > 2 amendment right to bear arms

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-06-2013, 06:41 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Ruger22lr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 452
Liked 87 Times on 65 Posts
Likes Given: 69

Default

I believe it means we should have access to civilian made firearms like Remington 700's etc and weapons that the infantry foot soldier carries and have carried in the past. Ex. AK47, M16, M4 etc.

__________________
Ruger22lr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 07:09 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TNFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: TN. U.S.A.
Posts: 293
Liked 125 Times on 68 Posts
Likes Given: 130

Default

Not to Hi-Jack but I always love it when the anti-gun bunch try to take it to extreme by saying "So, do you say that the 2nd Amendment gives you the Right to own a Tank or an H-Bomb then?" No, dummy, not a tank or H-Bomb but any weapon that's in common use by Infantry personnel which I do think would include a LAW or RPG but not crew served stuff like Mortars or Cannon. Those were held in common by the Militia as a whole, not an individual solider.

__________________
http://www.infowars.com/
Member: Gun Owners of America
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here!
This is the War Room!"
TNFrank is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 07:13 PM   #13
Dispossessed Mechwarrior.
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TDS92A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern Alabama or Northern Florida, the jury is still out.
Posts: 1,977
Liked 1365 Times on 805 Posts
Likes Given: 3441

Default

The only reason they bring up that tired old argument is because they do not know the difference between an AR-15 and a Cruise Missile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNFrank View Post
Not to Hi-Jack but I always love it when the anti-gun bunch try to take it to extreme by saying "So, do you say that the 2nd Amendment gives you the Right to own a Tank or an H-Bomb then?" No, dummy, not a tank or H-Bomb but any weapon that's in common use by Infantry personnel which I do think would include a LAW or RPG but not crew served stuff like Mortars or Cannon. Those were held in common by the Militia as a whole, not an individual solider.
__________________
The difficult I do immediately, the impossible takes me a few minutes longer.
NRA, U.S. Army (Ret), AGA, F&AM
A Person has to stand for something, or they will fall for anything.
How different the new order would be if we could consult the Veteran instead of the Politician - Henry Miller
The Soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. - Gen. Douglas MacArthur
TDS92A is offline  
Cattledog Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 07:54 PM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cattledog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 1,459
Liked 588 Times on 378 Posts
Likes Given: 535

Default

Personally I believe that my militia, being necessary to the security of my free tri-city area, requires at least enough firepower to hold back mobs of whomever that would threaten our freedom, peace and security.

That's the way our founders wanted it. They would all agree that any private militia should have a means of defense at least comparable to current government infantry.

I don't need or want a tank, missiles or any other ridiculous items that derail a perfectly legitimate conversation of what our founders saw as the necessary arming of the American public.

__________________
Join the NRA Here!


"You can have it fast, cheap and accurate...pick any two."~Me

"Educate and Inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them." ~Thomas Jefferson
Cattledog is offline  
TNFrank Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 10:21 PM   #15
Retired
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
danf_fl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LA (Lower Alabama),FL
Posts: 10,379
Liked 2954 Times on 1703 Posts
Likes Given: 1271

Default

Instead of saying "I don't need.....", say "I have the right to......."

By saying "I don't need to have a B1 bomber" could be compared to a waterfowler shotgun hunter say "I don't need an AR, so don't let it be had".

But if I say "I have the right to the same level of firepower as a military soldier", now that is positive!

__________________

Amendment II:
"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."

Life Member NRA
Life Member NAHC
Former President of the ECPT (Eifel Combat Pistol Team)

danf_fl is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 10:43 PM   #16
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21697 Times on 12308 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

really doesn't matter whether i have need or want of it, i can because the 2nd amendment says "Shall Not Be Infringed"

i have not yet read where there were any restrictions in the 2nd amendment. i fully believe that had the founding fathers, in all their infinite wisdom had wanted restrictions, they would have wrote them down!

i have more faith in their wisdom, than any politician or any liberal who thinks that the Constitution is outdated, or their words are out of context in todays world. how dare someone to think they have the knowledge or forethought to second guess these brave men who risked all to give us the great country, the rights and freedoms we have. the sheer audacity of some people just amazes me sometimes.

if people were to study many articles written by these men, that were not in the BOR or the Constitution but were in reference to what was, they would clearly understand the mindset and thinking of these great men. their fears were of a government that becomes too powerful and controled the governed, the people. this was the reason of the 2nd amendment, to limit the power of the government when it attempted to overstep it's bounderies.

we the people, for the people, of the people and by the people!

__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:20 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 615
Liked 325 Times on 194 Posts
Likes Given: 517

Default

Military style weapons were EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers meant the people to have! They had just fought a bloody war to overthrow a tyranical government. They wanted citizens to have the means to do the same thing if it became necessary again.

__________________
Warrior1256 is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:24 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10
Liked 2 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes

enabling the people to organize a militia system

participating in law enforcement

deterring tyrannical government

repelling invasion

facilitating a natural right of self-defend

does it say anything about what weapons we can/cannot own so why would the government want to change it. Does the government have a bigger agenda?

__________________

Last edited by carltonsprague; 02-06-2013 at 11:31 PM.
carltonsprague is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:35 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,077
Liked 4885 Times on 2368 Posts
Likes Given: 1524

Default

My only question is... why are we not pushing for legislation to overturn the regulations on Automatic weapons?

I mean, if the media can't tell the difference and continue to intentionally misinform the sheeple... then... Wouldn't a bi-partisan bill co sponsored by dozens of Republicans and Democrats to LEGALIZE the ownership of fully automatic select fire assault weapons sort of FORCE the media to tell the truth?

God knows they'd be falling all over themselves to paint supporters as "extreme fringe" for daring to think that legalizing "MACHINE GUNS" is a good idea!

Um... Wait... What were we trying to ban last week???

Tack

__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:35 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
bamashooter68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: cullman,alabama
Posts: 597
Liked 181 Times on 129 Posts
Likes Given: 129

Default

I believe we have the right to own a rifle, carbine, or handgun similar to the military weapon's of the day.

I grew up playing with toy M-16's. Carried a real one in the Army and own one now as a civilian. These guns and their 20-30rd magazines are as normal to me as buttered toast.

If the government and the progressive gun grabbers want to do something helpful, they need to find out what is making our young people snap and get them off this BS medicine they dont need.

__________________
bamashooter68 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Right to Bear Arms fireguy Legal and Activism 2 07-05-2012 05:32 AM
The right to bear arms Davyboy The Club House 10 12-14-2010 10:42 PM
Right to bear arms too much for some gatopardo The Club House 4 12-09-2010 07:08 PM
To Keep and Bear Arms Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 12-04-2009 09:24 PM
To keep and bear arms Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 01-16-2009 07:21 PM