2 amendment right to bear arms

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by carltonsprague, Feb 6, 2013.

  1. carltonsprague

    carltonsprague New Member

    10
    0
    0
    "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."

    i m a pro gun american and i want hear peoples opinions and how they view the above quote and how you associate it with military style weapons (AR AK and sub machine guns) all comments welcome.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  2. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    What's an "assault weapon"??? :confused: :rolleyes:
     

  3. Devin556

    Devin556 New Member

    552
    0
    0
    I see it pretty clear when it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I believe the public should have access to the same weapons that the majority of the soldiers have access to. And before anyone goes off saying anything about nukes or missiles your average soldier doesn't have access to those. Some do but the majority doesn't. We as a people need to be equally matched with the force that a tyrannical government would use against us.
     
  4. carltonsprague

    carltonsprague New Member

    10
    0
    0
    i totally agree to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic
     
  5. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    Please we do not own Assault Weapons. That is when talking about AR-15s and AKM-47 semi auto sporting arms. Why would a common semi auto rifle be banned? Not likely they have been around for 100 years.:)
     
  6. AR10

    AR10 New Member

    2,264
    0
    0
    Congress. That is who we need to be preaching to. Preaching to the church choir does what?

    Click on the green lettering in my signature and send letters to everyone involved in your government to leave our guns alone.
     
  7. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,361
    34
    48
    Personal Protection Weapon or Sport Utility Firearm.

    There is a reason the media has labeled black rifles as "Assault Rifle", they don't know that AR stands for Armalite Rifle.

    I was trained by the military on the AR platform rifle. The military rely on the AR rifle to protect their assests and compounds. I have the right to protect my assests and compound in the same manner.
     
  8. HOSSFLY

    HOSSFLY New Member

    6,932
    0
    0
    Theres only one way to view it if your IQ is at least 3 digits :confused:
     
  9. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    lets see,.............how do i view it? simple! any and all gun control laws, bans or restrictions ever passed from day one are an infringement, there for they are unconstitutional. and any new gun control laws, bans or restrictions are further infringement.
     
  10. Ruger22lr

    Ruger22lr New Member

    453
    0
    0
    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.
     
  11. TNFrank

    TNFrank New Member

    293
    0
    0
    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.
     
  12. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    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. :eek:

     
  13. Cattledog

    Cattledog New Member

    1,462
    0
    0
    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.
     
  14. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,361
    34
    48
    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!
     
  15. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    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!
     
  16. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    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.
     
  17. carltonsprague

    carltonsprague New Member

    10
    0
    0
    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: Feb 6, 2013
  18. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    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??? :D:D:D

    Tack
     
  19. bamashooter68

    bamashooter68 Member

    623
    0
    16
    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.