Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > The fight for the right to keep and bear arms

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-12-2010, 03:57 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Default

over the past 40 years or so, the liberal media has gone out of their way to make guns look bad. Notice how tricky they are, everytime a crime is committed with a firearm, they will use the term "gun crime" as if to say it is the gun's fault for the crime being committed.

In the city of Chicago where you have so many shootings, the media makes it seem like those gang members doing the shooting would be nobel prize winners or astrophysicists, if not for those evil guns.

You would not believe how much some people in my own family is against me having guns. The bottom line is I have guns to defend myself. In fact, a lot of people think you are a criminal if you own or carry a gun, and unless you are selling dope or robbing people, you don't need a gun.

I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as many people believe in the Bible.

__________________
clip11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2010, 01:14 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Liked 32 Times on 23 Posts
Likes Given: 45

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clip11 View Post
over the past 40 years or so, the liberal media has gone out of their way to make guns look bad. Notice how tricky they are, everytime a crime is committed with a firearm, they will use the term "gun crime" as if to say it is the gun's fault for the crime being committed.

In the city of Chicago where you have so many shootings, the media makes it seem like those gang members doing the shooting would be nobel prize winners or astrophysicists, if not for those evil guns.

You would not believe how much some people in my own family is against me having guns. The bottom line is I have guns to defend myself. In fact, a lot of people think you are a criminal if you own or carry a gun, and unless you are selling dope or robbing people, you don't need a gun.

I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as many people believe in the Bible.
Where ya been, Clip? I was thinking you had left us. Glad you're back.
__________________
NRA-Life
CRPA-Life

SAF-Life
PEIAPOI


"Obama has ordered the launching of more Tomahawk cruise missiles than All the other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 04:42 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Publius98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cedar Rapids,IA
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFighter69 View Post
The fact alone that the 2nd amendment uses language that pertains to citizens is clear ! The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed !
That one word, people means you, me, and everybody. It doesn't say right of the military, militia, or special group. The people have the right to form a militia if they choose is the first part. The people have the right to bear arms is the second. It's language is plain and simple but the dopey libbys will forever try to twist it out of the peoples favor. I have no problem with people who want to hug trees, but people who want to take my firearms and my fellow american's firearms away I do have a problem with them that do ! You see, a liberal is nothing but one who likes to start trouble. They just do it a bit more subtle, that's the difference. The day will come when a mugger will knock one to the ground and possible break a jaw or cut them with a knife, then they will sing a different song. We don't live in a world of grass, flowers, and butterflies.
Life isn't like a disney movie, these people just need to wake up from their daydream and get a taste of the real world.
It's actually simpler than that. The Militia was the Colonists' self-defense organization. Every able-bodied male citizen over the age of 15 of every hamlet, village and town was required to own, maintain and keep within their own homes, arms, powder and shot of any description, and be ready to respond, bearing them on a minute's notice to the common defense of the town. The call could come as a result of Indian attack, invasion or civil disruption of any kind. That is why it is an individual right. Individuals who owned their own weapons and kept them in their own homes formed the collective militia.


In the first paragraph of the Declaration, it refers to the "... separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ..." This phrase is the source of the arguments for and against Natural Law, and is one of many confirmations in our founding documents confirming our founding as a Christian nation. It is also a forewarning to King George III of what's coming, and validation for their establishment of a "separate and equal" nation.

The second paragraph of the Declaration, in part, reads: " WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and Organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them seems most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness."

The use of the word "unalienable" as an adjective modifying "rights" is as significant as the use of capital letters to emphasize words they thought important. It shows the understanding the founders had concerning their relationship to GOD; that the unalienable rights to which they referred were theirs by the Grace of God, and since they were given by God, they not only couldn't be taken away by government, but more importantly, they couldn't be revoked by man as an individual or as a group. Man has no power superseding the laws of God. So you can't take MY natural rights away, I can't take YOUR natural rights away and neither of us can claim as a right anything which when exercised by either of us interferes with the others (any others') ability to exercise his/her rights.

During the Clarence Thomas Senate Confirmation Hearings, then Senator Joe Biden (now VP) raised numerous objections and engaged in vociferous arguments against the concept of Natural Law, and anyone who has been alive and conscious for the past 50 years has seen the manifold attacks leveled against religion and Christian influences in our daily lives. Most of it has come at the expense of a moral compass, replaced in our government schools by the philosophies of moral relativism, secular humanism and values clarification.

If the government can replace the influence of religion in our lives -- in effect becoming our God -- then we have let it become by default the source of our rights. Consequently, it can take our rights away at will, or determine arbitrarily which rights we really have. It started with the Patriot Act, now currently up for renewal.

I guarantee, though, when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms, whether revoked by government fiat or by U.N. Treaty, the largest army in the world will resist with all we've got.
__________________
Publius98 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 07:16 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pasco Cty.FL
Posts: 6,434
Liked 2391 Times on 1361 Posts
Likes Given: 1881

Default

The handwriting is on the wall here. Obama didn't win the election by a

landslide, far from it. He KNOWS he has NO CHANCE of re-election.

The only way he can stay in office is to trash our Constitution, first, then make

a bid to become president for life through radical

political manipulation.

__________________
therewolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 09:06 PM   #15
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1302 Times on 661 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therewolf View Post
The handwriting is on the wall here. Obama didn't win the election by a

landslide, far from it. He KNOWS he has NO CHANCE of re-election.

The only way he can stay in office is to trash our Constitution, first, then make

a bid to become president for life through radical

political manipulation.
Interesting idea, but I don't think so. While he might like that idea, there are an awful lot of Americans who would say "Oh hell no!" in many creative ways.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 02:33 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Publius98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cedar Rapids,IA
Posts: 5
Default

'"Oh hell no!" in many creative ways. '

Love that understated subtlety. My wish would be a demonstration slightly more dramatic ... like for instance 5 million of us showing up in Washington carrying arms and marching on the White House ... just to make a 'subtle' point.

"The real trouble with common sense today is that it isn't as common as it used to be." - Will Rogers

__________________
Publius98 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 01:14 AM   #17
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 5,688
Liked 1646 Times on 899 Posts
Likes Given: 527

Default

On the news today. There is a concerted effort to force gun control on Switzerland. I believe they are the only European country that have free citizens and not subjects.

__________________

Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
You are either pro gun or pro crime.

JTJ is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 04:21 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Publius98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cedar Rapids,IA
Posts: 5
Default

With the change January 1st of the permitting process for carrying weapons here in Iowa, people like me who've had a permit issued under 6 sheriffs dating back to 1968 still have to re-take the class on weapons safety, handling and ethics (albeit a shorter one). Although not a state requirement, I think it's a good idea for permitees to qualify on the range to demonstrate that they can physically handle the weapon safely and hit that at which they're aiming. Although rare, there are a few John Wayne-types out there who haven't got a clue, either about the skills required or the responsibility involved.

Consequently, tonight I was at the local Isaak Walton indoor range practicing for my Saturday qualifier. This was my 2nd session. I've fired about 100 rounds in the two nights, and it was a bit of an eye opener, proving to myself not only that I can still qualify but just how much practice is needed on a regular basis to keep the skill level up. It's too easy to take for granted. That's why those John Waynes make me nervous.

__________________

"The real trouble with common sense today is that it isn't as common as it used to be." - Will Rogers

Publius98 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 08:27 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pasco Cty.FL
Posts: 6,434
Liked 2391 Times on 1361 Posts
Likes Given: 1881

Default

Not for nothin', but I've NEVER had a problem with a fellow gun-owner's ethics.

IMO, the politicians need the full, four class course on ethics.

Because they certainly seemed to have missed it in College.

Maybe somebody here can explain how a president, sworn by his inaugural oath to uphold and defend the people and the

constitution of the United States can get away with trashing the same constitution, and ignoring the American people?

My bet is Obama won't be an ethics instructor anytime soon.

__________________

Last edited by therewolf; 02-12-2011 at 08:30 PM.
therewolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 09:05 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 73
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default Lutenburg and 2nd amendment

Look at how many of us have lost our 2nd rights retroactively because of Lutenburg. Look at how many of us have lost our 2nd amendment rights because of Bull **** DV charges by disgruntled wives in divorce cases. Lutenburg must go, I am supprised that congress has not done away with it.

__________________
eaglesnester is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Fight! Fight! Pick the Winner!! ScottG The Club House 20 02-08-2009 08:27 PM
To keep and bear arms Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 01-16-2009 07:21 PM
Nevada ACLU supports an individualís right to bear arms opaww Legal and Activism 3 07-13-2008 08:30 AM
Revolver vs Bear FlavoredLead Revolver Handguns 5 10-04-2007 09:58 AM