I don't believe in gun control but I do believe that one must have full control of his/her gun at all times when in use...God forbid if there is some kind of "zombie outbreak" and these liberals don't have guns...I guess most of these zombies would be liberals. Happy hunting!
I don't know who the guy is running, but I do totally agree with the video. The founding fathers meant then and now for us to have our right to protect ourselves.
"It is stupidness for anyone to state that banning guns will cut crime and save lives...if that is someone's argument to ban guns then we might as well ban automobils, knvies, baseball bats, axes, saws, forks, hammers, et ceterea..."
That's also an argument to ban my wife's cooking...
Folks, did any of you read the quote on here from "fabulapowers"?
"Your quotes from the Founding Fathers totally ignores the context of when and about what they were said. The Founding Fathers were for the right to bear arms during the Revolutionary War, because it's kind of hard to win a war without guns..."
She says she is "an opinionated girl from the United States".
I did NOT attack your age. I merely INDICATED your age, because I know some people on here will attack you vehemently for what you have to say. How do you possibly interpret "go easy on her" as an attack?
Your quotes from the Founding Fathers totally ignores the context of when and about what they were said. The Founding Fathers were for the right to bear arms during the Revolutionary War, because it's kind of hard to win a war without guns... Today, we don't have a war on our home turf to gain independence. It's ludicrous to have a gun when a country does not have a direct threat against you.
"Your quotes from the Founding Fathers totally ignores the context of when and about what they were said. The Founding Fathers were for the right to bear arms during the Revolutionary War, because it's kind of hard to win a war without guns..."
If what you say is true, then you can tell us why they put it into the Constitution, which was drafted AFTER the Revolutionary War?
@AmericanPatriot2008 No, I'm saying that they saw a threat from Britain AFTER the Revolutionary War. And because America at this time had little dog syndrome and was trying to start something with Europe and England (case in point: the War of 1812). "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." Security of the state--the job of the military. Not civilians.
"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.." - correct.
Does it say "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, until such time as the threat from Great Britain shall have receded"?
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..." - PERIOD.
You've avoided fabulapower's main point.. The security of the state is NOT a matter for individual citizens or groups of individuals other than the WHOLE body of "the people." Why would the Founders/Framers have bypassed the bodies responsible for the security of their state? They wouldn't and DIDN'T.
You would also need to read and digest the other writings of the Founders, apart from what was set in the Constitution. It might widen your horizons on the issue a little...
You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. You appear to know NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the 2nd Amendment, yet here you are, apparently speaking "with authority" on the subject.
People who visit this video page of mine will soon set you straight. Prepare to be educated on the subject, because you are going to face a torrent of re-education!
@AmericanPatriot2008 Hahaha, dude you need to chill out. I know exactly what the second amendment says. It says militias have the rights to bear arms. We haven't used a militia since, like, what...the War of 1812?
So much for me talking with authority. This coming from the guy who uses caps and the word "torrent." I'm plenty educated. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm stupid. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
What do you have against the word "torrent"? Where did I say you are "stupid"?
And since you are interpreting the word "militia" as "military", then, essentially, you are arguing that they meant "the right of the military to bear arms shall not be infringed".
Does that spell out for you that your "argument" is a farce, or do we need to continue your "re-education"?
@AmericanPatriot2008 Well....you did say I have NO idea what I'm talking about, and I'd like to think that I do. I've just heard too many stories about little kids who have killed their siblings when they decided to play with daddy's gun, and I don't think most civilians should own guns. My grandma is 93, grew up in Haiti, and lives in Miami. She never needed a gun. I don't think that they really offer as much protection as everyone thinks they do.
@AmericanPatriot2008 - "..the Supreme Court says we are entitled to have guns...."
--------------------------------
....but the U.S. Constitution says no such thing.
The Second Amendment ensures that "the people" of the several states would not be solely dependent on a standing army for their security. It does NOT bypass the militia forces that were necessary to the security of those states.
@fabulapowers come try to take my guns and then try to take them from millions of others who know that once we lose them we are nothing more than slaves.what you think has nothing to do with me you do not have a right to dictate to me what I can and cannot do with my own person just as I dont have the right to tell you.so what if your grandmother didnt need one or if some stupid person leaves his gun out.I am not a socialist
@jesse2076 But you are so wrong. I assume by "you" you mean the government, which DOES dictate what you do and don't have the right to do. You don't have the right to kill people, take their money, drink underage. And I personally don't think some people have the right to own guns. I could use your argument back on you. What you think doesn't mean you have the right to do--just because you think you should own guns doesn't mean you actually should.
"And I personally don't think some people have the right to own guns."
Your personal views do not override the Constitution. The Constitution does not address murder, theft, or under-age drinking. It DOES address gun ownership, however.
@AmericanPatriot2008 - "The Constitution.. DOES address gun ownership, however."
----------------------
No it doesn't. If you carry a gun down the street you have NOT borne arms as the Framers understood it. To "bear arms" is a military expression. When Jefferson said that the king had taken seamen captive and forced them to "bear arms," he meant they were forced to "serve in the military" and "fight" against their fellow countrymen, not "own and carry guns" for self defence.
@AmericanPatriot2008 If the guy didn't have access to a gun many lives would have been saved. And what makes you think that just because someone owned a gun that they would have been able to stop him? What if he just shot them before they shot him? And also bear in mind most of the people he attacked were minors who should not be allowed to own guns.
Minors? What minors? They were Young Socialists - all over 17. Anyone over 16 is not classed as a minor in Europe and Scandinavia. 16 is the age of consent there.
People like him will always be able to get a gun - because they have no regard for the law. If he was coming for you - would you rather have a gun, or not?
AmericanPatriot2008 said: "Perhaps, but it doesn't say that "the right of the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed." It says, as you know, "the right of the people..."
------------------
But Franklin COULDN'T have been referring to it in the quote from the video.
If you look through a few State Constitutions from THAT time, you'll see both personal and collective rights. The collective rights are always a right of "the people." Personal rights used more suitable terms.
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. They are the Regular Army, Organized Militia(National Guard) and most importantly, the Unorganized Militia.
WesOrion said - " The Dick Act of 1902.. divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. They are the Regular Army, Organized Militia(National Guard) and most importantly, the Unorganized Militia."
---------------------
And I think you'll find that the WHOLE of the militia, including the Unorganized Militia, consists of persons meeting a certain criteria, ie, able bodied males of a certain age, not all individuals.
@freatork1 Why I pointed out the Dick Act of 1902 is that the unorganized militia is able to have to the same weapons and equipment of the Organized Militia and the Regular Army, if the individual can afford such weapons. Any gun law that prohibit such people of acquiring such weapons, such as full automatic weapons or artillery, should not even be existing. Tyranny is defined as what is illegal for the citizenry, but is legal for the Government.
@WesOrion Before the Dick Act, the individual militia members didn't have a right to own guns. Since the Dick Act, the same is still true.
"The people" in the Second Amendment is used in the same way as it is in "The people vs. Joe Criminal." Just as individuals would be called to serve on a jury in that process, they'd be called to serve in the militia on behalf of "the people," IF eligible to serve.
In all this game, the devil is the victim, is the scapegoat, will be acused of everything cause the GOD don’t want any rivals*. Conclusion: live at the full in the freedom of GOD (praying in a right form,following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible - keeping the 10 commandments - including keeping the Saturday as the 7th day etc.) instead of in the incapacity and limited power of devil cause he is just a temporary puppet.
Quote at 1:45 - That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state...."
--------
That's from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Madison and Mason had a hand in writing. Note that they considered maintaining a well regulated militia a right. THAT is what the Second Amendment protects.
Andrew Jackson quote at 1:33 - "..a million armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered...."
--------
You left out this bit - "...by a foreign foe. To any just SYSTEM, therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid IN MY POWER."
Those powers are set out in Article 1, Section 8. There, Congress has the power to arm, organize and discipline the militia and the States will appoint the officers,
That quote may be from 1775, but it can readily be applied to gun control laws. He was ralking about the people giving up their essential liberties, which includes the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not it came AFTER he made this statement is irrelevant to the import of what he said. His statement is equally applicable to the past, present, or future.
AmericanPatriot2008 said - "He was ralking about the people giving up their essential liberties, which includes the 2nd Amendment."
-----------------
NOT when it DIDN'T EXIST.
You PRESUME that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right to own guns, and you PRESUME that HE considered owning guns to be one of the "essential" liberties that he refers to. In fact, they considered free speech, freedom of religion and the right to a trial by jury to be the essential rights.
@freatork1 All of the first 10 amendments are all self evident, unalienable rights. That is why the first ten amendments are called "THE BILL OF RIGHTS".
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
Patriot3332 said: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms....."
---------------------------------------
".......on his own lands..."
This was a proposal for the State Constitution which the State rejected. It looks nothing like the militia amendment in the US BoR and has no bearing on it's purpose and meaning.
Even this proposal wouldn't have extended it's reach beyong freemen. Notice that this non-military use of arms doesn't contain the military phrase "bear arms."
In that quote, Jefferson talks about State Constitutions asserting that "the people" of most States had a duty to be at all times armed. Can anyone provide an example from any of those Constitutions asserting that all individuals MUST always carry a gun? Of course not.
THIS is what the people being at all times armed means-
DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
"That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government."
@AmericanPatriot2008 We don't need that pesky 2nd ammendment. It's a complete waste of time. Why did those guys back in 1787 even bother putting stuff like that in that silly document anyway? Let's recite that other thing that was written in 1892... "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United NATIONS of the world..." oooops, sorry, Just getting ready for what's to come...
Not really. I know what you mean, but technically, you are incorrect.
There are various offenses against the Constitution which are not actually treason. Of course there are also plenty of offenses against the Constitution which ARE treason.
@AmericanPatriot2008 Article III, Section 3; Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. To me, anyone that goes about changing one thing about the Constitution, which will benefit our enemies is treason. I feel that I am correct in my statement.
You cannot change ANYTHING about the Constitution unless you hold a Constitutional Convention. But you can, illegally, CIRCUMVENT the Constitution, by NAFTA, GATT, WTO, WHO, etc. All of this, including NAFTA, really stems from the UN. Unfortunately, the politicians who signed the United States up the the United Nations Charter are all dead. How you gonna hang the dead for treason?
@AmericanPatriot2008 circumventing does not mean that people should just roll over and take it, cause it is not an treasonous act, which I do feel that it is.
The only way we can get our country back is to violent revolution the only reason Gandhi and Martin Luther King preached nonviolence is because they did not have an Army if the ruling class such as Obama preaches nonviolence but why do they got two major wars going on in the CIA who know what's going on so don't preach nonviolence to me when the damn government will not do what they preach so to get our government back we are going to have a violent revolution
i'm a life long liberal, but i support ron paul and the second amendment. too many of our civil rights have been messed with, and i've had it. our country is nearly destroyed for the misplaced loyalty of many politicians.
@fairhardtofindaname if a legal resident you can get a permit and license liek anyone else, your bill of rights are protected and that includes defending yourself.
I have news for dumbass hillbillies like you, President Obama is signing into law his new Jared Loughner Law that will systematically remove your so-called "Right to Bare Arms" by the time his 2nd term ends.
One wonders were these statements in fact made by these people as claimed; were they ever uttered by body doubles who would have been declaimed by their namesake originals;Andrew Jackson's "1,000,000 armed men" quote 1:31 is clearly wrong,as World Wars have gone to prove;in what context were these things said. Firearms are not your Right under the Constitution: it is State Law that grants one the Right to Bear Arms,guided by the Federal Constitution. It is doubtful America could ever be disarmed
"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." Anyone with common sense can see that the foundind fathers are referring to the people of a militia being allowed to carry firearms. This amendment can still be clearly written without the phrase "A well regulated Militia," can it not? However, since it refers to the militia in the beginning, it is clear that is referring to "militians" being allowed
@turtleshot987 your a fucking RETARD ! ! ! Thomas Jefferson Clearly says it is the peoples right and duty to ALWAYS have a GUN.take a fucking history class before you comment on something sooo Important.Our Government is the biggest threat to any human including Americans. We want to have the right to protect our self from that just in case consider it like Health Insurance or Car Insurance it more like Govenment
Here's the problem. It's way too easy to inadvertently kill an innocent person with a gun. Therefore, to own a gun, you SHOULD be highly competent from an educational, training, physical, and mental standpoint. Period. One innocent human life is enough. Could be your own child, could be you. I'm all for freedom, but when it comes to certain things, the freedom needs to be merited and with no exceptions. It should be a huge achievement and damn hard to own a gun. It's way too easy right now.
Liberal here. Big fan of the 2nd Amendment and what it represents in terms of the balance of power between the individual and the state. Also a big fan of gun control laws which keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who have demonstrated an extreme lack of respect for the welfare of others.
@MrSquaky any inanimate object on this planet can be brandished as a weapon, it's the desire to kill, not the gun itself that leads to murder and am murderer is not restricted to firearms to do his deed but best not to be restricted to defend oneself from them.
@MrSquaky LOL says the person trying to argue on the internet, keyword TRYING, I'm not in argument because you don't have one as witnessed by your pathetic answer.
@MrSquaky LOL your sense of irony is as dull as your comprehension of the constitution. Only one person is trolling about like a juvenile spouting irrational assertions, at it's you.
Control only made gun crimes more legal for criminals. How does this work? The person accused for the crime gets lesser punishment because he or she are staying within the gun control laws.
A total ban on guns would'nt change anything, in fact it would only make things worse. American people like having the right to own a gun, and people who want guns would just get bigger and badder guns from the black market. And to those who comment on other countries gun policies, if you disdain the American right to own a gun, leave, move to Canada or Britain, places that outlaw guns.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men. I think people should realize that without the right to own a gun crime rates would be much higher than they are now because criminals would import their weapons and they would know that the likelyhood of anyone that isn't a police officer holding a concealed weapon are slim to none. Thus they would have no fear of anybody shooting them should they decide to rob a bank or a restaurant or just rampage
@AmericanPatriot2008 Grown ups are having a conversation.go to some left wing Blogger site with all that Immaturity KID.This is a Really Important Right that Fool's like this kid will never understand.
Well, you said you found it humourous. But you have the right to be offended also, if you so choose. But you cannot dispute that there are dangerous women who are homicidal maniacs.
ubangee the illegal alien destroying America does not want us armed when we figure out the manipulation going on behind closed doors. This fraud needs to be arrested, tried, convicted, and dealt with. Prison is to good for this communist puppet. Also, everyone thats involved in this mass conspiracy.
You do NOT have "A 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms." This may elicit tremors of horror from the unread. But no worthless scrap of parchment granted or conveyed to you the right to defend yourself against tyranny. That right was bestowed upon you by God Almighty himself when he created man in his own image.
No king, president, potentate, judge, jury, legislature, military tribunal or other pretender to authority can take from you the right to defend your life, liberty, property and family.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
we do not need permission to keep and bear arms. If you decide to go nits and shoot people or use a firearm in a criminal or irresponsible manner, them maybe you should lose that right. But for the rest of us, we will keep our guns and use them if necessary. There is no man that can rule another man.
Ok, I'ver read some of the comments and I've read the 2nd Amendment. Here is my question. In the 2nd Amendment it states, THE PEOPLE have the right to bear arms. Not the militia, not the goverment, not just law enforcement, but THE PEOPLE. Could someone defind THE PEOPLE? For at the begining of the Constatution, it states, WE, THE PEOPLE. I know what THE PEOPLE means at the begining, does the definition change in the 2nd Amendment?
The only people who argue that the definition changes are those who will stoop to anything to surreptiously alter the Constitution, and give it meaning it does not have. Militias are formed of people, and what the Constitution says is that in case the need for the people to form a militia arises, they must, at all times, retain their right to bear arms.
@tock101 The People are the militia. The militia existed before the military or police. The National Guard is not a Militia it is Part of the Army. The People are All American Citizens not part of the Government in any way.
I will not FIGHT until it is absolutely necessary. I will do the honorable thing and vote for the man who will uphold our rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Right now, free elections still exist. We still have a say in the direction of our country. Until that doesn't exist anymore, there is really no reason to need to fight. Once the democratic process no longer exists. That's when they've gone too far.
@mikerileysband - The Liberty's Teeth quote originally was cited as being a part of George Washington's first annual message to Congress on January 8th, 1790. You want to research it? Well, start looking for this text *shrugs*. The University of Virginia maintains an archive of papers of our founding fathers, feel free to contact the university or check out their website for more information.
my problem with this issue is a split, for example dose a citizen need a tank, not really do i want someone with one to live next to me, HELL NO, do i want to right to own a tank, HELL YES, would i ever own a tank even with the money to do so, HELL NO. complex issue not willing to give up my rights for my potential safety.
Well, I guess the citizens slaughtered by ATF and other Federal agencies at Waco in 1993 could have done with a tank to protect themselves from the battle tanks that came against them.
Do citizens need a tank? That's debatable. Depends on the circumstances. Citizens will not HAVE a tank. But NEEDING one? Go figure...
@AmericanPatriot2008 humm, but remember those videos of people on rampages with tanks, which one seems more likely to happen destruction of property and insane people going nuts, or someone attacking you in a way you could get to your tank?
Where would America be without guns? The answer is easy: under the boots of tyrants. This is not wild conjecture. It's the reason why totalitarian governments everywhere make disarmament of the citizenry their top priority. And it's the reason why our founders wasted precious little ink on the Bill of Rights before getting to that part about government not abridging the right of the people to bear arms. Thank God for Justice's Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts.........................
Yes, the filthy left wingers would like you to lose the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms. As much as I have been let down by the Republirats, they are hands down better than the Demorats on this and similar issues. Barney Frank And Rosie O'dingelberry would gladly leave you without the most effective means of self defense. These creeps live in a gated community, not around wooly haired homies intent on searching and destroying all they can get their hands on.
The days of the 2nd Amendment are numbered. As more illegals flood the country and Obama and the libs exploit them, their agenda will gain steam and these people will dominate every place of power and prestige in this country. The United States is over unless Caucasians are willing to fight back with everything they have (and I don't see soft couch potatoes taking this bull by the horn any time soon, though they be in the tens-of-millions). Kiss the Standard of Living goodbye!
Rights, whether collective or personal, differ IN THEIR APPLICATION.
If a State Declaration of Rights protects a right of "the people" to assemble and petition the government, it would only apply to those belonging to the collective body of "the people" OF THAT STATE, not to individuals that don't belong to that collective body.
III. "That the people of this State have the SOLE, exclusive and
inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same."
"The people" is CLEARLY a reference to the collective BODY of the people, not to any bunch of individuals.
Also, the internal police were to be REGULATED by LAWS. It doesn't mean that a bunch of individuals who can "function properly" have the right to govern the police.
@freatork1 wrote : "If a State Declaration of Rights protects a right of "the people" to assemble and petition the government, it would only apply to those belonging to the collective body of "the people" OF THAT STATE, not to individuals that don't belong to that collective body"
It thereby identifies a group, the members of which have the individual right specified. It does not create a "collective right".
"The constitutions of most of OUR STATES assert that all power is inherant in THE PEOPLE..." - Thomas Jefferson.
Clearly, all power is inherent in "the people" as a collective body, NOT just any group of individuals. Yet, 'OaGuardian' says that "the people" here means "the individual citizens." Crazy!
There is one reason other nations fear the United States. The USSR tried to invade Afghanistan and had mass casualties on a scale that they have never known to people fighting with turn of the century Enfield rifles. Imagine fighting against a nation of people stockpiled with some of the most state of the art small arms. Afghanistan would look like a holiday in the park compared to an attack on America. Disarm America and it will be the end of everything we know, take it from me, a US Veteran.
@patriot907 times have changed my freind, you are never gonna need to use your gun...
Terrorists will have blown themselves up in your country and killed thousands of people before you have the chance to use your gun...
At the moment, americans are just killing each other on a mass scale, and you probably have more chance of being killed in an american school by gun fire than some 3rd world countries. Yes, its that bad.
If it wasnt for the mexicans, americas population would be small...
the 2nd amendment was added to the bill of rights so if a tyrant took over America and started taking away our freedom we could form a militia to win our freedom back
@sparuto117 Yep, and let me tell you what. Making guns illegal won't stop criminals from accessing, them, it will keep law abiding citizens from arming ourselves for self defense. Example. Marijuana is currently illegal in Cali, yet its one of the biggest commodities sold here. People who wan't to ban guns (i.e. old politicians and celebs) are usually protected by body guards.
@specops3866 - In my opinion, we shouldn't even need permission to protect ourselves from criminals with firearms. Self-defense is a natural right that shouldn't have to be protected. Defending your own life is simple human nature. I, too, find it silly that the anti-gun people are surrounded by bodyguards. I guess the world isn't a safe place after all. It's all about the power. They could care less about the money or the other stuff. It's all about the power.
"...but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a FOREIGN foe. To any just SYSTEM, therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid in my power."
Oh, really? So are you are saying that Washington never said that? I suggest you read some history books. I can't believe you are alleging that I manufactured that quote, when even a five year old child can go check it for themselves.
@AmericanPatriot2008 - I'm sorry, but i agree with 'freaktork1'. The quote in question, is actually an excerpt from the 'Liberty Teeth' speech (2nd sess. 1st US Congress). It is also a well known fraud. The speech in whole or part does not appear in any of Washington's papers or speeches. Not sure if 'a five year old could check it for themselves', but I'm sure you could verify this with only a minimum amount of research. If you disagree (which is your right), please state sources....
Okay, I suppose just about ANY cited "quote" from a famous statesman might be a fraud, barring its inclusion in their actual published writings. Citing sources, in any event, would be emaningless, in this instance, since the cited "sources", might merely be the perpetrators of the fraud.
If the quote is fraudulent, I LIKE it nonetheless. If Washington didn't actually say, He damn well SHOULD have!
This has been flagged as spam show
Vote Ron Paul 2012
glajl 2 weeks ago
@bosshog7169
Deleted again. Either post something relevant, or be deleted again, or else stay away from this page. Your choice, oddball.
AmericanPatriot2008 1 month ago
I support gun control. Gotta keep the gun steady to maintain accuracy.
Jshatkyvich47 1 month ago
lol "bear" arms
erik4727 1 month ago
@erik4727
I have bear arms hanging on my wall!
AmericanPatriot2008 1 month ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 lol south park. XD
Kelthuzad126 1 month ago
I stand for the right to arm bears!
Scott19seventy5 2 months ago
Every woman has the right to bear kitchen knifes.
MetallicaFTW1981 3 months ago
The Second Amendment is the "ONLY" guarantee that the rest of the amendments will be enforced.
DoubleTapLasVegas 3 months ago in playlist More videos from AmericanPatriot2008 4
I don't believe in gun control but I do believe that one must have full control of his/her gun at all times when in use...God forbid if there is some kind of "zombie outbreak" and these liberals don't have guns...I guess most of these zombies would be liberals. Happy hunting!
DoubleTapLasVegas 3 months ago
I don't know who the guy is running, but I do totally agree with the video. The founding fathers meant then and now for us to have our right to protect ourselves.
sgoodnight792 3 months ago
Gun control works. I've seen it in action. Lives are in the balance and it saves millions every year.
Ultimaton100 5 months ago
@Obamain2012
"It is stupidness for anyone to state that banning guns will cut crime and save lives...if that is someone's argument to ban guns then we might as well ban automobils, knvies, baseball bats, axes, saws, forks, hammers, et ceterea..."
That's also an argument to ban my wife's cooking...
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
Folks, did any of you read the quote on here from "fabulapowers"?
"Your quotes from the Founding Fathers totally ignores the context of when and about what they were said. The Founding Fathers were for the right to bear arms during the Revolutionary War, because it's kind of hard to win a war without guns..."
She says she is "an opinionated girl from the United States".
But go easy on her. She is only 17.
.
***
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 Wow, personally attacking my age. Man did you show me! Why don't you attack the content of my argument instead of me, hmm?
fabulapowers 6 months ago
@fabulapowers
I did NOT attack your age. I merely INDICATED your age, because I know some people on here will attack you vehemently for what you have to say. How do you possibly interpret "go easy on her" as an attack?
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
Your quotes from the Founding Fathers totally ignores the context of when and about what they were said. The Founding Fathers were for the right to bear arms during the Revolutionary War, because it's kind of hard to win a war without guns... Today, we don't have a war on our home turf to gain independence. It's ludicrous to have a gun when a country does not have a direct threat against you.
fabulapowers 6 months ago
@fabulapowers
"Your quotes from the Founding Fathers totally ignores the context of when and about what they were said. The Founding Fathers were for the right to bear arms during the Revolutionary War, because it's kind of hard to win a war without guns..."
If what you say is true, then you can tell us why they put it into the Constitution, which was drafted AFTER the Revolutionary War?
Are you saying they were a bunch of idiots?
***
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 No, I'm saying that they saw a threat from Britain AFTER the Revolutionary War. And because America at this time had little dog syndrome and was trying to start something with Europe and England (case in point: the War of 1812). "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." Security of the state--the job of the military. Not civilians.
fabulapowers 6 months ago
@fabulapowers
"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.." - correct.
Does it say "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, until such time as the threat from Great Britain shall have receded"?
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..." - PERIOD.
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008
You've avoided fabulapower's main point.. The security of the state is NOT a matter for individual citizens or groups of individuals other than the WHOLE body of "the people." Why would the Founders/Framers have bypassed the bodies responsible for the security of their state? They wouldn't and DIDN'T.
freatork1 2 weeks ago
@fabulapowers
You would also need to read and digest the other writings of the Founders, apart from what was set in the Constitution. It might widen your horizons on the issue a little...
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
@fabulapowers
You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. You appear to know NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the 2nd Amendment, yet here you are, apparently speaking "with authority" on the subject.
People who visit this video page of mine will soon set you straight. Prepare to be educated on the subject, because you are going to face a torrent of re-education!
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 Hahaha, dude you need to chill out. I know exactly what the second amendment says. It says militias have the rights to bear arms. We haven't used a militia since, like, what...the War of 1812?
So much for me talking with authority. This coming from the guy who uses caps and the word "torrent." I'm plenty educated. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm stupid. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
fabulapowers 6 months ago
@fabulapowers "I will defend to the death your right to say it." and that won't take very long... as long as you don't have a gun to defend it....
Danny82ABN 6 months ago
@fabulapowers
What do you have against the word "torrent"? Where did I say you are "stupid"?
And since you are interpreting the word "militia" as "military", then, essentially, you are arguing that they meant "the right of the military to bear arms shall not be infringed".
Does that spell out for you that your "argument" is a farce, or do we need to continue your "re-education"?
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
@fabulapowers
I defy you to show me where I said that you are stupid. On the contrary, I can see that you aare a highly intelligent young woman.
You are putting your argument across highly articulately. It's just that your argument is a nonsense, as previously affirmed by the Supreme Court.
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 Well....you did say I have NO idea what I'm talking about, and I'd like to think that I do. I've just heard too many stories about little kids who have killed their siblings when they decided to play with daddy's gun, and I don't think most civilians should own guns. My grandma is 93, grew up in Haiti, and lives in Miami. She never needed a gun. I don't think that they really offer as much protection as everyone thinks they do.
fabulapowers 6 months ago
@fabulapowers
Yes - I said that I believe when it comes to the intent of the Founders, you have no idea what you are talking about. That remains my position.
But you are perfectly entitled to your views on gun control. Doesn't mean I think you're stupid.
No responsible person should ever leave a gun where a child can pick it up.
Your grandma may never have needed a gun, thank God - but what about people who have?
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago 2
@AmericanPatriot2008 No one said leave it where a child can pick it up, we all have to be responsible.
sgoodnight792 3 months ago
@fabulapowers
Anyway - the Supreme Court says we are entitled to have guns.
What do you have to say about THAT?
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 - "..the Supreme Court says we are entitled to have guns...."
--------------------------------
....but the U.S. Constitution says no such thing.
The Second Amendment ensures that "the people" of the several states would not be solely dependent on a standing army for their security. It does NOT bypass the militia forces that were necessary to the security of those states.
freatork1 2 weeks ago
@fabulapowers come try to take my guns and then try to take them from millions of others who know that once we lose them we are nothing more than slaves.what you think has nothing to do with me you do not have a right to dictate to me what I can and cannot do with my own person just as I dont have the right to tell you.so what if your grandmother didnt need one or if some stupid person leaves his gun out.I am not a socialist
jesse2076 6 months ago
@jesse2076 But you are so wrong. I assume by "you" you mean the government, which DOES dictate what you do and don't have the right to do. You don't have the right to kill people, take their money, drink underage. And I personally don't think some people have the right to own guns. I could use your argument back on you. What you think doesn't mean you have the right to do--just because you think you should own guns doesn't mean you actually should.
fabulapowers 6 months ago
@fabulapowers
"And I personally don't think some people have the right to own guns."
Your personal views do not override the Constitution. The Constitution does not address murder, theft, or under-age drinking. It DOES address gun ownership, however.
So who cares what you think?
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 - "The Constitution.. DOES address gun ownership, however."
----------------------
No it doesn't. If you carry a gun down the street you have NOT borne arms as the Framers understood it. To "bear arms" is a military expression. When Jefferson said that the king had taken seamen captive and forced them to "bear arms," he meant they were forced to "serve in the military" and "fight" against their fellow countrymen, not "own and carry guns" for self defence.
freatork1 2 weeks ago
@fabulapowers
She does not understand the concept that if one of those people in Norway had had a gun to hand, many lives would have been saved.
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
Comment removed
fabulapowers 6 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 If the guy didn't have access to a gun many lives would have been saved. And what makes you think that just because someone owned a gun that they would have been able to stop him? What if he just shot them before they shot him? And also bear in mind most of the people he attacked were minors who should not be allowed to own guns.
fabulapowers 6 months ago
@fabulapowers
Minors? What minors? They were Young Socialists - all over 17. Anyone over 16 is not classed as a minor in Europe and Scandinavia. 16 is the age of consent there.
People like him will always be able to get a gun - because they have no regard for the law. If he was coming for you - would you rather have a gun, or not?
AmericanPatriot2008 6 months ago
The 2nd Amendment was formed by the founding fathers for many reasons but one main reason is to protect the people from an oppressive government.
So why on earth are people allowing this to happen? Let's not be like Europe and allow the Government to control our lives, this is America.
Chicken10843 6 months ago
@freatork1
Perhaps, but it doesn't say that "the right of the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It says, as you know, "the right of the people..."
AmericanPatriot2008 7 months ago
AmericanPatriot2008 said: "Perhaps, but it doesn't say that "the right of the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed." It says, as you know, "the right of the people..."
------------------
But Franklin COULDN'T have been referring to it in the quote from the video.
If you look through a few State Constitutions from THAT time, you'll see both personal and collective rights. The collective rights are always a right of "the people." Personal rights used more suitable terms.
freatork1 7 months ago
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. They are the Regular Army, Organized Militia(National Guard) and most importantly, the Unorganized Militia.
WesOrion 7 months ago
WesOrion said - " The Dick Act of 1902.. divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. They are the Regular Army, Organized Militia(National Guard) and most importantly, the Unorganized Militia."
---------------------
And I think you'll find that the WHOLE of the militia, including the Unorganized Militia, consists of persons meeting a certain criteria, ie, able bodied males of a certain age, not all individuals.
freatork1 7 months ago
@freatork1 Why I pointed out the Dick Act of 1902 is that the unorganized militia is able to have to the same weapons and equipment of the Organized Militia and the Regular Army, if the individual can afford such weapons. Any gun law that prohibit such people of acquiring such weapons, such as full automatic weapons or artillery, should not even be existing. Tyranny is defined as what is illegal for the citizenry, but is legal for the Government.
WesOrion 7 months ago
@WesOrion Before the Dick Act, the individual militia members didn't have a right to own guns. Since the Dick Act, the same is still true.
"The people" in the Second Amendment is used in the same way as it is in "The people vs. Joe Criminal." Just as individuals would be called to serve on a jury in that process, they'd be called to serve in the militia on behalf of "the people," IF eligible to serve.
freatork1 7 months ago
@Snowy1688 then leave the country you Socialist cock sucking scumbag.
WesOrion 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In all this game, the devil is the victim, is the scapegoat, will be acused of everything cause the GOD don’t want any rivals*. Conclusion: live at the full in the freedom of GOD (praying in a right form,following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible - keeping the 10 commandments - including keeping the Saturday as the 7th day etc.) instead of in the incapacity and limited power of devil cause he is just a temporary puppet.
diptdipt 8 months ago
2ndAmendment makes4 separate statementseach thought divide by the commas
1.A well regulated Militia.
2.Being necessary to the security of a free State.
3.The right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
4.Shall not be infringed.
Don’t let the fools,fool you!Each statement is separate,and clear!Especially the 3rd part
2nd is for protection,and to take back control of a corrupt Government
Its so simple,Globalists need to create confusion
Whats the problemOfficer?LifeLibertyPursuitofHappiness
Clint45s 8 months ago
Comment removed
Clint45s 8 months ago
Comment removed
Clint45s 8 months ago
I carry a gun because cops are too heavy!!!
bigbenff1 9 months ago
I lost my 2nd Amendment rights off of hearsay and no conviction or anything. Thank god for justice..
You stupid blind cunt.
LordAvoc 9 months ago
Quote at 1:45 - That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state...."
--------
That's from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Madison and Mason had a hand in writing. Note that they considered maintaining a well regulated militia a right. THAT is what the Second Amendment protects.
freatork1 9 months ago
Andrew Jackson quote at 1:33 - "..a million armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered...."
--------
You left out this bit - "...by a foreign foe. To any just SYSTEM, therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid IN MY POWER."
Those powers are set out in Article 1, Section 8. There, Congress has the power to arm, organize and discipline the militia and the States will appoint the officers,
freatork1 9 months ago
"2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms.. Did the Founding Fathers have anything to say about this?... "
--------------
The Benjamin Franklin quote at 1:13 is from Feb, 1775. How could he have been saying anything about the "2nd Amendment?"
freatork1 9 months ago
@freatork1
That quote may be from 1775, but it can readily be applied to gun control laws. He was ralking about the people giving up their essential liberties, which includes the 2nd Amendment. Whether or not it came AFTER he made this statement is irrelevant to the import of what he said. His statement is equally applicable to the past, present, or future.
You are nit-picking my friend!
AmericanPatriot2008 7 months ago
AmericanPatriot2008 said - "He was ralking about the people giving up their essential liberties, which includes the 2nd Amendment."
-----------------
NOT when it DIDN'T EXIST.
You PRESUME that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right to own guns, and you PRESUME that HE considered owning guns to be one of the "essential" liberties that he refers to. In fact, they considered free speech, freedom of religion and the right to a trial by jury to be the essential rights.
freatork1 7 months ago
@freatork1 All of the first 10 amendments are all self evident, unalienable rights. That is why the first ten amendments are called "THE BILL OF RIGHTS".
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
Patriot3332 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Patriot3332 said: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms....."
---------------------------------------
".......on his own lands..."
This was a proposal for the State Constitution which the State rejected. It looks nothing like the militia amendment in the US BoR and has no bearing on it's purpose and meaning.
Even this proposal wouldn't have extended it's reach beyong freemen. Notice that this non-military use of arms doesn't contain the military phrase "bear arms."
freatork1 7 months ago
The Jefferson quote - "The constitutions of most of our States assert,..."
So, he's not talking about the "2nd Amendment Right To Bear Arms."
"...that all power is inherent in the people;..."
Meaning- the collective body of the people of those States.
"...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..."
Again, meaning- the collective body of the people in those States had the right and duty to be at all times armed.
freatork1 9 months ago
In that quote, Jefferson talks about State Constitutions asserting that "the people" of most States had a duty to be at all times armed. Can anyone provide an example from any of those Constitutions asserting that all individuals MUST always carry a gun? Of course not.
THIS is what the people being at all times armed means-
DELAWARE (September 11, 1776)
"That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government."
freatork1 9 months ago
that is NOT how the constitution defines treason
nsdtr01 10 months ago
@nsdtr01
What specific point are you referring to?
AmericanPatriot2008 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanPatriot2008 We don't need that pesky 2nd ammendment. It's a complete waste of time. Why did those guys back in 1787 even bother putting stuff like that in that silly document anyway? Let's recite that other thing that was written in 1892... "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United NATIONS of the world..." oooops, sorry, Just getting ready for what's to come...
outlawracer2229 10 months ago
@nsdtr01 treason is anything that is against the Constitution.
WesOrion 7 months ago
@WesOrion
Not really. I know what you mean, but technically, you are incorrect.
There are various offenses against the Constitution which are not actually treason. Of course there are also plenty of offenses against the Constitution which ARE treason.
AmericanPatriot2008 7 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 Article III, Section 3; Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. To me, anyone that goes about changing one thing about the Constitution, which will benefit our enemies is treason. I feel that I am correct in my statement.
WesOrion 7 months ago
@WesOrion
"Changing one tthing about the Constitution..."
You cannot change ANYTHING about the Constitution unless you hold a Constitutional Convention. But you can, illegally, CIRCUMVENT the Constitution, by NAFTA, GATT, WTO, WHO, etc. All of this, including NAFTA, really stems from the UN. Unfortunately, the politicians who signed the United States up the the United Nations Charter are all dead. How you gonna hang the dead for treason?
AmericanPatriot2008 7 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 circumventing does not mean that people should just roll over and take it, cause it is not an treasonous act, which I do feel that it is.
WesOrion 7 months ago
If they ever pass a ban, They'll need a very good, and very expensive metal detector to find mine !!!!!
TigertailzBezerk 10 months ago
The only way we can get our country back is to violent revolution the only reason Gandhi and Martin Luther King preached nonviolence is because they did not have an Army if the ruling class such as Obama preaches nonviolence but why do they got two major wars going on in the CIA who know what's going on so don't preach nonviolence to me when the damn government will not do what they preach so to get our government back we are going to have a violent revolution
KYKIN44 10 months ago
i'm a life long liberal, but i support ron paul and the second amendment. too many of our civil rights have been messed with, and i've had it. our country is nearly destroyed for the misplaced loyalty of many politicians.
sherhak 10 months ago
exuse me sorry for the very gerneral qustion but do you have to be a citizen to purchase a firarm in the states or can a residence own aswel??
fairhardtofindaname 11 months ago
@fairhardtofindaname if a legal resident you can get a permit and license liek anyone else, your bill of rights are protected and that includes defending yourself.
Speegs23 11 months ago
@fairhardtofindaname You have to be a citizen.
evolutionist101 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see we have yet another typical Gun-toting Trigger-Happy White Conservative Republican Redneck Fucktard.
Didn't you guys rule America for 8 years already?? Didn't get anything done, did you?
Typical response, exact circular-reasoning Pro-Lifers spew!
I have news for dumbass hillbillies like you, President Obama is signing into law his new Jared Loughner Law that will systematically remove your so-called "Right to Bare Arms" by the time his 2nd term ends.
So FUCK YOU AND YOUR MURDEROUS GUNS!!!
GayWorldOrder 1 year ago
Get Armed: when you need help police will be too late as they are busy guarding anti-gun politicians.
yuowatcher 1 year ago
One wonders were these statements in fact made by these people as claimed; were they ever uttered by body doubles who would have been declaimed by their namesake originals;Andrew Jackson's "1,000,000 armed men" quote 1:31 is clearly wrong,as World Wars have gone to prove;in what context were these things said. Firearms are not your Right under the Constitution: it is State Law that grants one the Right to Bear Arms,guided by the Federal Constitution. It is doubtful America could ever be disarmed
Lieu3C4 1 year ago
"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." Anyone with common sense can see that the foundind fathers are referring to the people of a militia being allowed to carry firearms. This amendment can still be clearly written without the phrase "A well regulated Militia," can it not? However, since it refers to the militia in the beginning, it is clear that is referring to "militians" being allowed
turtleshot987 1 year ago
@turtleshot987 your a fucking RETARD ! ! ! Thomas Jefferson Clearly says it is the peoples right and duty to ALWAYS have a GUN.take a fucking history class before you comment on something sooo Important.Our Government is the biggest threat to any human including Americans. We want to have the right to protect our self from that just in case consider it like Health Insurance or Car Insurance it more like Govenment
TheSelfMadeFamily 1 year ago
@turtleshot987 You don't think much...much?
evolutionist101 10 months ago
Here's the problem. It's way too easy to inadvertently kill an innocent person with a gun. Therefore, to own a gun, you SHOULD be highly competent from an educational, training, physical, and mental standpoint. Period. One innocent human life is enough. Could be your own child, could be you. I'm all for freedom, but when it comes to certain things, the freedom needs to be merited and with no exceptions. It should be a huge achievement and damn hard to own a gun. It's way too easy right now.
shiahnn 1 year ago
Liberal here. Big fan of the 2nd Amendment and what it represents in terms of the balance of power between the individual and the state. Also a big fan of gun control laws which keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who have demonstrated an extreme lack of respect for the welfare of others.
grimshawr 1 year ago
Guns gives you the power to KILL or critically injure others. Remember killing is wrong...
MrSquaky 1 year ago
@MrSquaky
Killing is not wrong if someone is trying to kill YOU...
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago 30
@AmericanPatriot2008
And what is the weapon that person is trying to kill you with; oh thats right, most likely it's a gun.
MrSquaky 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot2008
Your correct AmericanPatriot. When God said though shall not kill he was speaking about murder
with malice.
allendora8489 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 amen(its in the bible)
delgande 10 months ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 Thou shall not kill. Atheists...
SmashBrosFan19 4 months ago 2
@SmashBrosFan19
No - thou shalt run them out of town.
AmericanPatriot2008 4 months ago
@SmashBrosFan19 thats pretty offensive
VTodd1000 3 months ago
@VTodd1000 Shut your dick little pusser
SmashBrosFan19 3 months ago
@SmashBrosFan19 nah
VTodd1000 2 weeks ago
@MrSquaky Quote: "Guns gives you the power to KILL or critically injure others."
300Lb of weight and muscles give young athlete power to kill 100 Lb old lady. You are not solving that. But the gun (in hands of lady) does.
yuowatcher 1 year ago
@yuowatcher
Why are you trying to start an argument?
MrSquaky 1 year ago
@MrSquaky So do cars, knives, shelves, the keyboard you'll respond to me with, and a pen.
Fallout3Follower 1 year ago
@MrSquaky any inanimate object on this planet can be brandished as a weapon, it's the desire to kill, not the gun itself that leads to murder and am murderer is not restricted to firearms to do his deed but best not to be restricted to defend oneself from them.
Speegs23 11 months ago
@Speegs23
Stop trying to start an argument, I have a life, besides the sole purpose of a gun is to kill something.
MrSquaky 11 months ago
@MrSquaky LOL says the person trying to argue on the internet, keyword TRYING, I'm not in argument because you don't have one as witnessed by your pathetic answer.
Speegs23 11 months ago
@Speegs23
Yeah Im so offended, go troll somewhere else nerd.
MrSquaky 11 months ago
@MrSquaky LOL your sense of irony is as dull as your comprehension of the constitution. Only one person is trolling about like a juvenile spouting irrational assertions, at it's you.
Speegs23 11 months ago
@MrSquaky "the sole purpose of a gun is to kill something."
Interesting. I bought mine for the sole purpose of shooting paper and steel targets. However, if dangerous individuals get in the way....so be it.
evolutionist101 10 months ago
@MrSquaky are you mentally ok.. your little off..
lucasmaximusdecinus 11 months ago
@MrSquaky MURDER is WRONG. Killing a MURDERER....is good.
evolutionist101 10 months ago
Control only made gun crimes more legal for criminals. How does this work? The person accused for the crime gets lesser punishment because he or she are staying within the gun control laws.
TheJake1005 1 year ago
A total ban on guns would'nt change anything, in fact it would only make things worse. American people like having the right to own a gun, and people who want guns would just get bigger and badder guns from the black market. And to those who comment on other countries gun policies, if you disdain the American right to own a gun, leave, move to Canada or Britain, places that outlaw guns.
sushiking1223 1 year ago
The Second Amendment is very poorly written. It is one of the most subject to interpretation written law ever.
friedie1jeff 1 year ago
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men. I think people should realize that without the right to own a gun crime rates would be much higher than they are now because criminals would import their weapons and they would know that the likelyhood of anyone that isn't a police officer holding a concealed weapon are slim to none. Thus they would have no fear of anybody shooting them should they decide to rob a bank or a restaurant or just rampage
TylerAColby 1 year ago 8
@TylerAColby
QUOTE: "There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men. "
Oh yeah? What about dangerous WOMEN?
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago 3
@AmericanPatriot2008 Women are always dangerous
blacktacticalninja 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 Grown ups are having a conversation.go to some left wing Blogger site with all that Immaturity KID.This is a Really Important Right that Fool's like this kid will never understand.
TheSelfMadeFamily 1 year ago
@TheSelfMadeFamily
What immature kid?
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 women can be dangerous men too
hiccera 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot2008
I found this comment kind of humorous but as a female... Should I be offended?
Pimpful97 1 year ago
@Pimpful97
Well, you said you found it humourous. But you have the right to be offended also, if you so choose. But you cannot dispute that there are dangerous women who are homicidal maniacs.
Hey, there are plenty of women on death row.
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago
@TylerAColby Agree. If guns kill people mine is definitely defective.
yuowatcher 1 year ago
People who own guns are dumb HillyBillies.
OBAMA 2012!
MrLiberal4life 1 year ago
@MrLiberal4life People who want to ban guns are a sheep.
301Goldstar 1 year ago
ubangee the illegal alien destroying America does not want us armed when we figure out the manipulation going on behind closed doors. This fraud needs to be arrested, tried, convicted, and dealt with. Prison is to good for this communist puppet. Also, everyone thats involved in this mass conspiracy.
785070707 1 year ago
You do NOT have "A 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms." This may elicit tremors of horror from the unread. But no worthless scrap of parchment granted or conveyed to you the right to defend yourself against tyranny. That right was bestowed upon you by God Almighty himself when he created man in his own image.
No king, president, potentate, judge, jury, legislature, military tribunal or other pretender to authority can take from you the right to defend your life, liberty, property and family.
webfulcrum 1 year ago
right on.
hollyzone 1 year ago
Who needs bear arms?
blaach 1 year ago
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
PrincessGlowingStar 1 year ago
I agree. We all hope that things can be worked out peacefully. But take away a man's right to bear arms and you make him a slave.
richieblck 1 year ago
we do not need permission to keep and bear arms. If you decide to go nits and shoot people or use a firearm in a criminal or irresponsible manner, them maybe you should lose that right. But for the rest of us, we will keep our guns and use them if necessary. There is no man that can rule another man.
richieblck 1 year ago
Ok, I'ver read some of the comments and I've read the 2nd Amendment. Here is my question. In the 2nd Amendment it states, THE PEOPLE have the right to bear arms. Not the militia, not the goverment, not just law enforcement, but THE PEOPLE. Could someone defind THE PEOPLE? For at the begining of the Constatution, it states, WE, THE PEOPLE. I know what THE PEOPLE means at the begining, does the definition change in the 2nd Amendment?
tock101 1 year ago
@tock101
The only people who argue that the definition changes are those who will stoop to anything to surreptiously alter the Constitution, and give it meaning it does not have. Militias are formed of people, and what the Constitution says is that in case the need for the people to form a militia arises, they must, at all times, retain their right to bear arms.
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago
@tock101 The People are the militia. The militia existed before the military or police. The National Guard is not a Militia it is Part of the Army. The People are All American Citizens not part of the Government in any way.
SGTFUGAL 1 year ago
Freedom!!!
joezbackwith2gatz 1 year ago
I will not FIGHT until it is absolutely necessary. I will do the honorable thing and vote for the man who will uphold our rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Right now, free elections still exist. We still have a say in the direction of our country. Until that doesn't exist anymore, there is really no reason to need to fight. Once the democratic process no longer exists. That's when they've gone too far.
hogger129 1 year ago
@mikerileysband - The Liberty's Teeth quote originally was cited as being a part of George Washington's first annual message to Congress on January 8th, 1790. You want to research it? Well, start looking for this text *shrugs*. The University of Virginia maintains an archive of papers of our founding fathers, feel free to contact the university or check out their website for more information.
matrixbarf 1 year ago
Watching Erik Scott's cororners inquest in Vegas today, clearly shows that Erik was trying to give his weapon to the cops. The cops are murders!!
Vote Independent, Restore the Republic
v44forme1 1 year ago
Better dead than red
cingulator57 1 year ago
my problem with this issue is a split, for example dose a citizen need a tank, not really do i want someone with one to live next to me, HELL NO, do i want to right to own a tank, HELL YES, would i ever own a tank even with the money to do so, HELL NO. complex issue not willing to give up my rights for my potential safety.
kevinjjfr 1 year ago
@kevinjjfr
Does a citizen need a tank?
Well, I guess the citizens slaughtered by ATF and other Federal agencies at Waco in 1993 could have done with a tank to protect themselves from the battle tanks that came against them.
Do citizens need a tank? That's debatable. Depends on the circumstances. Citizens will not HAVE a tank. But NEEDING one? Go figure...
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 humm, but remember those videos of people on rampages with tanks, which one seems more likely to happen destruction of property and insane people going nuts, or someone attacking you in a way you could get to your tank?
kevinjjfr 1 year ago
This is da best amendment i have bear arms hanging on my wall right now and i havent looked back
avenged7ex 1 year ago
That's right Ron Paul
tina5359 1 year ago
Always remember - once you give up your guns, YOU ARE TOAST!
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago
Where would America be without guns? The answer is easy: under the boots of tyrants. This is not wild conjecture. It's the reason why totalitarian governments everywhere make disarmament of the citizenry their top priority. And it's the reason why our founders wasted precious little ink on the Bill of Rights before getting to that part about government not abridging the right of the people to bear arms. Thank God for Justice's Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts.........................
kcufmalsi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, the filthy left wingers would like you to lose the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms. As much as I have been let down by the Republirats, they are hands down better than the Demorats on this and similar issues. Barney Frank And Rosie O'dingelberry would gladly leave you without the most effective means of self defense. These creeps live in a gated community, not around wooly haired homies intent on searching and destroying all they can get their hands on.
tickyul 1 year ago
DEATH TO THE NWO
Uinvestigate911 1 year ago 8
The days of the 2nd Amendment are numbered. As more illegals flood the country and Obama and the libs exploit them, their agenda will gain steam and these people will dominate every place of power and prestige in this country. The United States is over unless Caucasians are willing to fight back with everything they have (and I don't see soft couch potatoes taking this bull by the horn any time soon, though they be in the tens-of-millions). Kiss the Standard of Living goodbye!
guyNbluejeans 1 year ago
Sign an official petition to Congress to oppose the UN's "Small Arms Treaty" that Hillary Clinton has signed!!!!! Go to: "nationalgunrights(dot)org"
MELISSA84008 1 year ago
@OaGuardian
Rights, whether collective or personal, differ IN THEIR APPLICATION.
If a State Declaration of Rights protects a right of "the people" to assemble and petition the government, it would only apply to those belonging to the collective body of "the people" OF THAT STATE, not to individuals that don't belong to that collective body.
freatork1 1 year ago
PENNSYLVANIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
III. "That the people of this State have the SOLE, exclusive and
inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same."
"The people" is CLEARLY a reference to the collective BODY of the people, not to any bunch of individuals.
Also, the internal police were to be REGULATED by LAWS. It doesn't mean that a bunch of individuals who can "function properly" have the right to govern the police.
freatork1 1 year ago
@freatork1 wrote : "If a State Declaration of Rights protects a right of "the people" to assemble and petition the government, it would only apply to those belonging to the collective body of "the people" OF THAT STATE, not to individuals that don't belong to that collective body"
It thereby identifies a group, the members of which have the individual right specified. It does not create a "collective right".
legaleagle45 1 year ago
@OaGuardian
"The constitutions of most of OUR STATES assert that all power is inherant in THE PEOPLE..." - Thomas Jefferson.
Clearly, all power is inherent in "the people" as a collective body, NOT just any group of individuals. Yet, 'OaGuardian' says that "the people" here means "the individual citizens." Crazy!
freatork1 1 year ago
Well it Tomas Jefferson said it than it must be true of life...
As times change so does how we do things, Evolution of a Nation is not necessarily the end of a Nation. Sometimes it is necessary.
Security? Our Economy is our Security, Mutually Assured Destruction applied to Economics, If we fall, the world goes with us.
But i would like to own a gun in the future.
But i don't know guns... Always encourage learning.
SanFaggcisco 1 year ago
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it. "
George Washington
Its almost like he knew...
HaleFire7 1 year ago
There is one reason other nations fear the United States. The USSR tried to invade Afghanistan and had mass casualties on a scale that they have never known to people fighting with turn of the century Enfield rifles. Imagine fighting against a nation of people stockpiled with some of the most state of the art small arms. Afghanistan would look like a holiday in the park compared to an attack on America. Disarm America and it will be the end of everything we know, take it from me, a US Veteran.
patriot907 1 year ago
@patriot907 times have changed my freind, you are never gonna need to use your gun...
Terrorists will have blown themselves up in your country and killed thousands of people before you have the chance to use your gun...
At the moment, americans are just killing each other on a mass scale, and you probably have more chance of being killed in an american school by gun fire than some 3rd world countries. Yes, its that bad.
If it wasnt for the mexicans, americas population would be small...
MrPresidentToBe 1 year ago
if the government take the 2nd amendment away then there is no future for the united states.
88pie88 1 year ago
the 2nd amendment was added to the bill of rights so if a tyrant took over America and started taking away our freedom we could form a militia to win our freedom back
easyname1231 1 year ago 3
@easyname1231 thank you for saying that!!! thats the true reason for the 2nd amendment!
sparuto117 1 year ago
@sparuto117 Yep, and let me tell you what. Making guns illegal won't stop criminals from accessing, them, it will keep law abiding citizens from arming ourselves for self defense. Example. Marijuana is currently illegal in Cali, yet its one of the biggest commodities sold here. People who wan't to ban guns (i.e. old politicians and celebs) are usually protected by body guards.
specops3866 1 year ago
@specops3866 - In my opinion, we shouldn't even need permission to protect ourselves from criminals with firearms. Self-defense is a natural right that shouldn't have to be protected. Defending your own life is simple human nature. I, too, find it silly that the anti-gun people are surrounded by bodyguards. I guess the world isn't a safe place after all. It's all about the power. They could care less about the money or the other stuff. It's all about the power.
hogger129 1 year ago
@hogger129
"It's all about the power. They could care less about the money or the other stuff. It's all about the power."
Agreed.
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago
"NWO is nigh and the constitution guarantees my right to stockpile ursine forelimbs and rabbit feet. I shall honor this cherished tradition."
what a bunch of faggots...
11thsockpuppet 1 year ago
How can you squeeze a personal right to own a gun, unconected to a well regulated militia, for hunting and self defence out of the madison quote?
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, TRAINED TO ARMS, is the best... defence of a free country."
freatork1 1 year ago
@freatork1
I see. So you are arguing that we can have guns just as long as we belong to a "milita"?
So are you saying that even if I belong to a "militia", I have to leave my gun in the militia locker-room when I go home? What bullshit.
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago 11
Anderw Jackson quote in context:
"...but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a FOREIGN foe. To any just SYSTEM, therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid in my power."
freatork1 1 year ago
Looks like someone is forcing Roberts out of office, say good bye to America and say hello to AMERIKA comrad.
Conspiracy, big time, we are screwed
mrfellowship 1 year ago
Let's put the second quote into context:
"The constitutions of most of OUR STATES assert that all power is inherant in THE PEOPLE..."
That's a reference to the collective BODY of "the people," not just any individual or bunch of individuals.
".. that it is their (see above) right and duty to be at all times armed."
freatork1 1 year ago
The first quote in this piece of propaganda is bogus.
freatork1 1 year ago
@freatork1
Oh, really? So are you are saying that Washington never said that? I suggest you read some history books. I can't believe you are alleging that I manufactured that quote, when even a five year old child can go check it for themselves.
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot2008 - I'm sorry, but i agree with 'freaktork1'. The quote in question, is actually an excerpt from the 'Liberty Teeth' speech (2nd sess. 1st US Congress). It is also a well known fraud. The speech in whole or part does not appear in any of Washington's papers or speeches. Not sure if 'a five year old could check it for themselves', but I'm sure you could verify this with only a minimum amount of research. If you disagree (which is your right), please state sources....
matrixbarf 1 year ago
@matrixbarf
Okay, I suppose just about ANY cited "quote" from a famous statesman might be a fraud, barring its inclusion in their actual published writings. Citing sources, in any event, would be emaningless, in this instance, since the cited "sources", might merely be the perpetrators of the fraud.
If the quote is fraudulent, I LIKE it nonetheless. If Washington didn't actually say, He damn well SHOULD have!
Incidentally, what is your view on gun control?
AmericanPatriot2008 1 year ago