Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is true. The National Firearms Act should be constitutionally invalidated for just this reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
.................... and they never could have forseen jet aircraft, tanks, aircraft carriers, nukes and rocket launchers.
The goal of the founding fathers was to create parity between the arms of the citizens and the government. Currently, we, as citizens, are in a much more disadvantageous position to resist the government than were citizens of the late 1700s.
Given that, the founding fathers would probably be shocked that citizens are prohibited, by the government, from owning many types of weapons.
If the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be less well armed than the government, the 2nd amendment would have been the right to bear bows and arrows or stones, not firearms. Wake up.
The Second Amendment is still the “law” of the land as it has not been repealed or changed and thus the most relevant. (And upheld by the US Supreme Court).
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,861,253 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by soanchorless
No doubt. But the articles written first indicate the the purpose of the 2nd amendment (written by the same people who wrote the articles) was to have a militia to protect the government, not the other way around.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]
One mans "insurrection" is anothers "resistance". Resistance to opression is NOT insurrection. If the government tries to declare a coup, it is our duty, as the militia, to resist the usurping of our rights. The militia also has a duty to support the government, should it be required for the common defense, i.e., an invasion by a foriegn power, OR, a genuine insurrection, with a domestic power, with a goal of tyranny as its aim. It all goes to the "common defense" . To fight for our rights, our freedoms, our homes and families. Against ALL enemies, foriegn and domestic.
Why would a democratically elected Republican government declare a coup?
No doubt. But the articles written first indicate the the purpose of the 2nd amendment (written by the same people who wrote the articles) was to have a militia to protect the government, not the other way around.
The militia (or the people) were meant to protect the people from invaiders or an over reaching federal government.
The constitution was meant as a limit to government not a limit of people.
Did you miss the equal protection part of the 14th amendment?
Um, that deals with people who are going to court because they are being charged with a crime
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You cant pick 6 words of a sentence and pretend its the point..
No doubt. But the articles written first indicate the the purpose of the 2nd amendment (written by the same people who wrote the articles) was to have a militia to protect the government, not the other way around.
Um, that deals with people who are going to court because they are being charged with a crime
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You cant pick 6 words of a sentence and pretend its the point..
I bolded the important part for you. The government cannot create a system that gives benifits to one group (hetero) and not give those same benifits to another group (homo).
You could make an argument, which I support, but would never happen, that the government should be involved in marriage to begin with. Marriage is a religious instatution binding two individuals together under god. It shouldn't come with tax breaks either, nor should having children for that matter.
And unlike every other right protected by the constitution, this one has a contingency: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Once a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary, it becomes moot, unlike inalienable rights that have no contingency.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
