I think there is a misunderstanding of our rights and what this group is calling
violence. We have every right to use guns or any weapaone against governmernt
oppressions and any attempt to modify of change our bill of rights and freedoms.
This right to use weapons is a constituional right and we do not need government
permission to buy or keep or maintain our guns or weapons of choice. Defending our freedoms has no restrictions and none can be made or enacted by
law. These bill of rights and 2nd amendments are having the desired affect and
purpose for their existence, put fear in their hearts for disobeying the
Constitution and our rights. Be it civilian, government, or foreign invasion,
the 2nd amendment is to insure citizens have the power to repel undesirable
attempts to change or alter our government. The civilian militia has
the authority to march on leaders and remove all from office. The Army is the
property of the citizens and must obey our wishes even if it is in the act of
removing undesirable politicians or leaders from office. Government and
representatives exist with our permission as government has no rights.
Now watch for the paranoid rants from the extreme right. They will be warning
us that we all need to have guns at hand and be ready to rise up against
imaginary government oppressions.What's equally frightening as
a mentally ill person with a gun? It's a super hyper patriot with an
arsenal in his bunker.
The History of the 2nd Amendment:Most of the House debate was lead
by two Antifederalists. In general the Antifederalists showed their deep fear
of the national government. The Federalists, with the votes to back them up,
said little. The debaters never sought to clarify the meaning of
the words "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But, the
overwhelming tenor of the debate is that the Congressmen perceived this
discussion as concerning only the militia. The last clause, providing an
exemption for pacifists, fits with this understanding. Nowhere in the debate is
there the slightest hint about a private or individual right to own a weapon.
One of the leading military historians of the period notes, "in all the
discussion and debates" over the Second Amendment, there is precious little
evidence that advocates of local control of the militia showed an equal or even
a secondary concern for gun ownership as a personal right." The records of
the state courts and legislatures for this period reflect this conclusion, as
numerous courts accepted the notion that to "bear arms" was a term
solely connected to the militia and the military.
the only reason the nra dosent want background checks is the gun makers control
them and have been making record profits here and other countries. and since the
talk about gun laws sales are even higher because of proaganda by them people
think guns are going to be taken away even though no one has said anthing of the
kind at all. they are winning with miss information.
m2cents is making his own laws right now. i swore an oath to protect, but if a
change is made by our repulic then that is the law it is not a bible. it was
made to be modified, grow with our country. slavery was never right so we
As reported several days ago, the majority of our US population favors universal
background checks. This seems like a good move forward.
Old man,repeating more hate speech from the DNC and MSNBC.thanks for the consistency.