07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 154155156157158 ...
tools
  1. llamabreath's Avatar
    I think the constitution still belongs to us. As long as we have our 2nd the gov't cannot take us for granted.


    Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app
    A few rifles will not stop a tyrannical government.



    (⊙_⊙) I think people that take the time out of their day (or night) to think of some clever, memorable or just plain dumb signature probably have way too much time on their collective hands and they should get back to work and earn their paycheck, instead of just expecting their paycheck. People like this make me sick to my stomach.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    12-09-2013 05:07 PM
  2. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    But our rights are being pushed, maybe not gone yet, but definitely affected by government influence. Constantly after out second amendment, already making changes to our 1st amendment. They collect taxes for more than what the constitution says they are allowed to. The government constantly, in the form of small increments, are steadily trying to take from us. We as a people, have one major problem. We as individuals tend to not worry about what amendment is broken or infrint upon as long as it doesn't SEEM to affect us specifically. They are doing it to us little by little. Put a frog in boiling water, he will jump out. Put him in the pot and let it come to a boil and he will sit there until he CROAKS....


    Sent from my HTC6500LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    12-09-2013 05:13 PM
  3. nolittdroid's Avatar
    There is no need for a well organized militia anymore...we have the various military services and police forces for that. This is the only excuse I ever see when people want to justify their "right" to owning every type of weapon. Id have more respect for gun happy second amendment lovers if they just owned up to liking the sport.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    palandri and Fairclough like this.
    12-09-2013 07:17 PM
  4. palandri's Avatar
    There is no need for a well organized militia anymore...we have the various military services and police forces for that.....

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    ....but those are the ones that they recruit into the New World Order and fly around in black helicopters disarming the public and then putting us all into FEMA labor camps. Haven't you ever listened to the wise one, Alex Jones?
    Fairclough and nolittdroid like this.
    12-09-2013 09:39 PM
  5. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I think the constitution still belongs to us. As long as we have our 2nd the gov't cannot take us for granted.


    Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app
    You are correct. However, I fear that they are doing just that. It wouldn't surprise me to see an attempt at repelling the Second Amendment actually.
    12-09-2013 11:34 PM
  6. JW4VZW's Avatar
    There is no need for a well organized militia anymore...we have the various military services and police forces for that. This is the only excuse I ever see when people want to justify their "right" to owning every type of weapon. Id have more respect for gun happy second amendment lovers if they just owned up to liking the sport.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    Have you seen the state that the military is currently in? Morale is at an all time low. Maybe you haven't seen the huge defense cuts in the last five years.
    As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.
    ....but those are the ones that they recruit into the New World Order and fly around in black helicopters disarming the public and then putting us all into FEMA labor camps. Haven't you ever listened to the wise one, Alex Jones?
    More liberal nonsense.
    12-09-2013 11:38 PM
  7. Fairclough's Avatar
    In a modern day you don't need to carry a gun in the street.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    12-10-2013 03:16 AM
  8. plumbrich's Avatar
    Some believe the 2nd Amendment " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," somehow refers to the National guard. However the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1787, and the National Guard was not created until another 130 years in 1917. Obviously they were not speaking of a National guard.

    The National Guard is federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, so how can it be a "state" militia?

    During Katrina the Federally funded National guard were going door to door taking away peoples arms leaving them defenseless. A true militia looking out for the safety of the citizens would or should during times like that be handing out arms to unarmed citizens based on individual case so they would be able to protect themselves and property.
    Bratigan and mrsmumbles like this.
    12-10-2013 05:36 AM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    In a modern day you don't need to carry a gun in the street.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Tell that to people that have been mugged, women that have been raped, or someone that has watched a couple of thugs beat a friend to death...
    The Hustleman and qxr like this.
    12-10-2013 05:42 AM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    Some believe the 2nd Amendment " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," somehow refers to the National guard. However the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1787, and the National Guard was not created until another 130 years in 1917. Obviously they were not speaking of a National guard.

    The National Guard is federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, so how can it be a "state" militia?

    During Katrina the Federally funded National guard were going door to door taking away peoples arms leaving them defenseless. A true militia looking out for the safety of the citizens would or should during times like that be handing out arms to unarmed citizens based on individual case so they would be able to protect themselves and property.
    The National Guard has existed as a dual State and Federal agency for most of it's history with chains of command through the governor and the president. Realistically, as soon as the US decided to have a standing peace time army, the part about "the militia" became obsolete. The militia was intended to exist INSTEAD of an army in the original constitution, which the founders found to be both a dangerous entity and a massively wasteful expense. It is somewhat accurate that the "well regulated militias" became part of the National Guard at their inception, however we exist in a state still with two definitions of militias, which is the basis for the legality of the draft.
    12-10-2013 05:56 AM
  11. Fairclough's Avatar
    Tell that to people that have been mugged, women that have been raped, or someone that has watched a couple of thugs beat a friend to death...
    If there were more guns on the street who would have more of an upper hand with surprise? Then man with the bullet.

    Fists against fists are a lot safer than gun v gun.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    12-10-2013 06:47 AM
  12. NoYankees44's Avatar
    If there were more guns on the street who would have more of an upper hand with surprise? Then man with the bullet.

    Fists against fists are a lot safer than gun v gun.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Fist v fist means strongest/best fighter wins. Period. Which puts everyone else at the mercy of the biggest. Rules that no civil society should be based on.

    Most small time thugs don't have guns, but that won't stop them from beating your face in and raping your girl. But a gun in the hands of a good samaritan can very easily when properly used.

    If you are OK telling small men and women that they have not right to defend themselves, then you are more than welcome to. Me personally, I am not going to tell a woman that if she is threatened by a man in a back ally that she is going to have to do whatever he wants. I have seen too many rape victims to let that fly.
    The Hustleman and qxr like this.
    12-10-2013 07:02 AM
  13. The Hustleman's Avatar
    Personally as a gun owner, I think if it gets to violence a fight should be the way, but you can't fight groups, especially not I'd someone is armed or as pointed out above, a woman.


    In modern times, guns are more needed now than ever.

    No logic in the good guy being unarmed while some thugged out gangster is armed. No good would come of that.

    What we need is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. SAFE gun handling.
    qxr likes this.
    12-10-2013 08:08 AM
  14. palandri's Avatar
    Fist v fist means strongest/best fighter wins. Period. Which puts everyone else at the mercy of the biggest. Rules that no civil society should be based on.

    Most small time thugs don't have guns, but that won't stop them from beating your face in and raping your girl. But a gun in the hands of a good samaritan can very easily when properly used.

    If you are OK telling small men and women that they have not right to defend themselves, then you are more than welcome to. Me personally, I am not going to tell a woman that if she is threatened by a man in a back ally that she is going to have to do whatever he wants. I have seen too many rape victims to let that fly.
    How many self defense shootings do you have per month in the city you live in? 15-20?
    12-10-2013 08:55 AM
  15. NoYankees44's Avatar
    How many self defense shootings do you have per month in the city you live in? 15-20?
    I cannot find any hard statistics, but I rarely hear about much. There was one a week ago. A fairly high percentage of people carry though.
    palandri likes this.
    12-10-2013 09:39 AM
  16. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I cannot find any hard statistics, but I rarely hear about much. There was one a week ago. A fairly high percentage of people carry though.
    This still has no accounting for what carrying does to be a crime deterrent.


    Sent from my HTC6500LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    12-10-2013 11:12 AM
  17. NoYankees44's Avatar
    This still has no accounting for what carrying does to be a crime deterrent.


    Sent from my HTC6500LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    Exactly.

    There is a very large not tangible factor at play here.
    12-10-2013 11:29 AM
  18. Live2ride883's Avatar
    If you are a criminal, who are you going to rob/attack first. Someone who is or is not able to defend themselves.

    I always carry if I have to go into a building that doesn't allow it I leave my weapon in my vehicle safe. I also rarely conceal, open is the best option for me. It let's criminals know that I am ready and able to defend myself and others from them.
    12-10-2013 12:54 PM
  19. Bratigan's Avatar
    The US Code is not obsloete so therefore the militia clause is also not obsolete. The law is the law, your description is merely whim. The clause remains on the books until
    it is repealed from the statute.
    12-10-2013 02:40 PM
  20. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Some believe the 2nd Amendment " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," somehow refers to the National guard. However the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1787, and the National Guard was not created until another 130 years in 1917. Obviously they were not speaking of a National guard.
    So far you are correct.
    The National Guard is federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, so how can it be a "state" militia?
    You are not even close to being correct. Most National Guard, and Air National Guard, units operate from state-owned installations. Sure, there are a few that operate from Active Duty bases, but this is not the norm.
    During Katrina the Federally funded National guard were going door to door taking away peoples arms leaving them defenseless. A true militia looking out for the safety of the citizens would or should during times like that be handing out arms to unarmed citizens based on individual case so they would be able to protect themselves and property.
    Were they operating under state orders, or federal orders? If they were operating under federal orders they can’t do as you said.
    The National Guard has existed as a dual State and Federal agency for most of it's history with chains of command through the governor and the president. Realistically, as soon as the US decided to have a standing peace time army, the part about "the militia" became obsolete. The militia was intended to exist INSTEAD of an army in the original constitution, which the founders found to be both a dangerous entity and a massively wasteful expense. It is somewhat accurate that the "well regulated militias" became part of the National Guard at their inception, however we exist in a state still with two definitions of militias, which is the basis for the legality of the draft.
    The National Guard, and the Air National Guard, is for lack of a better phrase a dual role organization. They can either operate at the state level, under the governor, or at the federal level, through the Department of Defense, under the president. What role they are filling determines which Chain of Command they fall under.
    The US Code is not obsloete so therefore the militia clause is also not obsolete. The law is the law, your description is merely whim. The clause remains on the books until
    it is repealed from the statute.
    It’ll be repealed soon I bet. That is sad though that the tyrant in chief thinks he can change the Constitution as he pleases.
    12-10-2013 03:34 PM
  21. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Have you seen the state that the military is currently in? Morale is at an all time low. Maybe you haven't seen the huge defense cuts in the last five years.
    As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.


    More liberal nonsense.
    Really?? You own guns just because it is your right granted as by the constitution? That's ridiculous.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    12-10-2013 04:12 PM
  22. JohnnytheK's Avatar
    Really?? You own guns just because it is your right granted as by the constitution? That's ridiculous.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    I really hope not because that is one of the reasons I own firearms.

    Also shooting steel pigs at 300 meters is a real hoot.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    nolittdroid likes this.
    12-10-2013 04:43 PM
  23. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Really?? You own guns just because it is your right granted as by the constitution? That's ridiculous.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    What I said was “As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.” It shouldn’t matter why I have my guns because they are all legally obtained, registered and a Constitutional Right. Sure, target shooting is fun. Ever since I was working in Richmond and the store manager in the slot next to me got robbed late at night leaving work, I have been worried about being robbed with large amounts of cash. Perhaps people should be more worried about the street thugs illegally obtaining guns and using them for crimes then the rest of us legal gun owners. So how is it ridiculous that I own a gun because, in your words, it is my "right granted as by the constitution? " I will never understand the liberal peoples logic.
    I really hope not because that is one of the reasons I own firearms.

    Also shooting steel pigs at 300 meters is a real hoot.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    Like I said, target shooting is fun. I grew up around guns and was taught, at an early age, the importance of gun safety. But they need not worry too much, we won’t have a Second Amendment for much longer. We actually have a pool going on at my store for that.
    12-10-2013 05:48 PM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    What I said was “As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.” It shouldn’t matter why I have my guns because they are all legally obtained, registered and a Constitutional Right. Sure, target shooting is fun. Ever since I was working in Richmond and the store manager in the slot next to me got robbed late at night leaving work, I have been worried about being robbed with large amounts of cash. Perhaps people should be more worried about the street thugs illegally obtaining guns and using them for crimes then the rest of us legal gun owners. So how is it ridiculous that I own a gun because, in your words, it is my "right granted as by the constitution? " I will never understand the liberal peoples logic.

    Like I said, target shooting is fun. I grew up around guns and was taught, at an early age, the importance of gun safety. But they need not worry too much, we won’t have a Second Amendment for much longer. We actually have a pool going on at my store for that.
    Not to speak for someone else, but what I think she was going after was that if you said you own them for self defense, for collecting, for hunting, for sport, or any other reason, that'd make sense. Buying them simply because they're in the Constitution is doesn't make as much sense. That's what allows you to buy them, not the cause. Otherwise, since freedom of the press is guaranteed, should we all go buy printing presses and make our own newspapers? Having the right doesn't mandate utilizing it, but rather protects the ability of those who choose to do so. That's not a liberal comment in any way that I can fathom, but I may have misunderstood it.
    UJ95x and msndrstood like this.
    12-10-2013 06:14 PM
  25. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Not to speak for someone else, but what I think she was going after was that if you said you own them for self defense, for collecting, for hunting, for sport, or any other reason, that'd make sense. Buying them simply because they're in the Constitution is doesn't make as much sense. That's what allows you to buy them, not the cause. Otherwise, since freedom of the press is guaranteed, should we all go buy printing presses and make our own newspapers? Having the right doesn't mandate utilizing it, but rather protects the ability of those who choose to do so. That's not a liberal comment in any way that I can fathom, but I may have misunderstood it.
    Again, what I said was “As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.” So that does cover the sport aspect of things. I also covered the personal defense aspect. So I have my guns for sport (target shooting) and defense. That being said, it is my right to have a gun. The liberal comment has to do with the typical liberal attitude towards guns. That is they are not needed and nobody should have them. As for “Having the right doesn't mandate utilizing it, but rather protects the ability of those who choose to do so.” I hope like hell I never have to use my gun for personal defense. To say that it is “ridiculous” to own a gun because my right is, in fact, quite ridiculous in itself.
    12-10-2013 06:30 PM
4,617 ... 154155156157158 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD