I know Im probably gonna get some heat for this

[brotherbill3]

I'm using logic, reading comprehension skills, and historical knowledge rather than being driven by emotion and the need to demonize those who think differently than me. Despite all of the attempts, nobody has put forward any reasoning that would convert the unconverted.

I've tried to help promote gun rights by getting people to realize why they are being tuned out by those don't fit their criteria for being "conservative". Apparently, some people would rather keep trying the same arguments, only louder, and expect a different outcome. Good luck with that.

Call me when Cruz or Paul (son or father) becomes president.

There is plenty of historical documentation as to what the founders / authors meant and intended IMO. I have no need to demonize or over ermotionalize (if I may make up a word). ... but I do disagree on the bold part.

We will not nor should we attempt this. There always have been and always will be this segment. No logical argument will sway Mayor Bloomberg; nor S.Watts. ... The are the extreme against the things which we stand; - The objective is not to 'convert the unconverted' but to reach with personable, factual information - the 87% in the middle, or about 60% of them that agree with us.

where did I get 87% - well we're all pretty familiar (I hope) with the 3% that fought against the British; what you may not realize is 10% (approximatly) of the population was loyal to the British - and this 10% pretty much left and went back to England and parts abroad - after we won the war. ... (if only they have kept Piers M.) ...

 

[IndyDave1776]

You are interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean - that's also known as rationalizing. If it was worded clearly, we wouldn't have endless discussions about it. Without the "militia" part, it COULD also be interpreted to clearly mean that it applies without limitation.

And, I don't need to resort to name-calling. Name calling is a common tactic when the facts aren't on your side.

If you were so bright as you purport by implication and directly in the following post of your, you would understand that the militia as defined at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights was every able-bodied male (per US Code) and every able-bodied citizen, not gender-specific according to the State of Indiana.

Also, if you think the facts are on your side, you had better do hard time in remedial history.

I'm using logic, reading comprehension skills, and historical knowledge rather than being driven by emotion and the need to demonize those who think differently than me. Despite all of the attempts, nobody has put forward any reasoning that would convert the unconverted.

I've tried to help promote gun rights by getting people to realize why they are being tuned out by those don't fit their criteria for being "conservative". Apparently, some people would rather keep trying the same arguments, only louder, and expect a different outcome. Good luck with that.

Call me when Cruz or Paul (son or father) becomes president.

You are not going to get those on the other side to understand because THEY DON'T F**KING WANT TO UNDERSTAND. Can you not understand that?

I would also point out that you are arguing against yourself in your criticism of conservatives and their choice of candidates. Once again, conservatives (or presumed conservatives) have been responsible for every GOP Presidential win in my lifetime. "Moderates" have lost every time they ran. Unfortunately the "moderates" are in a position to exert disproportionate leverage on the primaries. Learn something from this. And, no, your earlier argument that conservatives should obediently put their full support behind whatever clown the RNC shoves up their asses doesn't work.

 

[GunsNstuff]

Never. Anti gun people are zealots. They're not reasonable. They may promise things but they will be lying. We give up nothing and we take back the ground we've lost. You cannot compromise with zealots. They do not want gun safety They want gun bans. They just can't ban them outright, so they chip away at the rights until there is little to nothing left.

 

[Roadie]

You are interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean - that's also known as rationalizing. If it was worded clearly, we wouldn't have endless discussions about it. Without the "militia" part, it COULD also be interpreted to clearly mean that it applies without limitation.

And, I don't need to resort to name-calling. Name calling is a common tactic when the facts aren't on your side.

ICYMI:

The FACT of 2A is that it is poorly worded. Without the "well regulated militia" part, it would be much simpler. Legal scholars have long disagreed with what it means, and there is no end in sight. The only true fact is that nobody really knows for sure. So we are left with trying to arrive at a consensus OPINION about what it really means. When you think about it, the same holds true for everything else in the constitution as well.

No, it is not a FACT, it is your OPINION.. Separate clauses, just like in the rest of the BoR. The wording is only unclear, if you try to twist it..

Give this article a read..
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

 

[Crbn79]

Compromise would be not lighting them on fire once we tar and feather them!

 

[Roadie]

Forgive me another re-post..

Seriously, to believe it is poorly worded(or that the Right belongs to the Militia), one has to believe that our Founders were SO stupid, that they MEANT "Right of the Militia" but wrote "Right of the People" by mistake.

 

[cce1302]

You are interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean - that's also known as rationalizing. If it was worded clearly, we wouldn't have endless discussions about it. Without the "militia" part, it COULD also be interpreted to clearly mean that it applies without limitation.

I'm not interpreting or rationalizing anything. I'm reading the words and understanding them in the literal sense. I'm looking at the grammar as it is written. No interpretation is necessary.

And, I don't need to resort to name-calling. Name calling is a common tactic when the facts aren't on your side.

I didn't call you any names, but if the shoe fits, you're welcome to it.

 

[Viper1973]

Compromise would be not lighting them on fire once we tar and feather them!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm done 'compromising' with the anti- folks. They've pretty well proven that they're either communists or just plain nuts!

 

[Slapstick]

At first they didn't want people to smoke on airplanes now you can't even smoke outside in some places. (not that I approve or disprove of smoking just giving an example). Look at everything a person like Blumberg wants to control in your life, big soda, breast feeding, what you eat, etc. under the mantra it's for your own good. Never give an inch and never compromise when it comes to your freedoms or someone will take them away an inch at a time.

 

[Canes173]

There have been too many compromises! The anti-gunners, the liberals, won't stop trying to chip away at our Rights until they are all gone. Logic and facts never stand in the way of their agenda, they use tragedies to their advantage, to spread lies and scare the sheeple into demanding laws be changed. The truly scary thing is that there are those among us who actually believe giving in on background checks, "assault" weapons bans, or mag capacity wouldn't really be a bad thing....they need to wake the F*CK UP!!! Or one day our kids or grandkids will be learning about the Bill of Rights in the past tense. I'm glad my ancestors didn't compromise when the British Regulars marched on Concord.

 

[GunsNstuff]

You are interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean - that's also known as rationalizing. If it was worded clearly, we wouldn't have endless discussions about it. Without the "militia" part, it COULD also be interpreted to clearly mean that it applies without limitation.

And, I don't need to resort to name-calling. Name calling is a common tactic when the facts aren't on your side.

The meaning wasn't debated until the 20th century and that is only because of a growing number of people who no longer liked the idea of people having guns. The Second Amendment's meaning is clear as a bell. It always was. The confusion some people have about it today is completely manufactured by gun grabbers of all kinds, from the simple minded citizen to the highly educated Supreme Court Justice. The entire Bill of Rights were intentionally written to be clear and understandable for all citizens, so they'd know and understand their rights. They all understood it too. Even if a few people didn't understand it, if the meaning was unclear, the fact that citizens in peacetime were never disarmed and never told to turn in their guns under order of the new federal government should make it clear to anyone.

 

[The Drifter]

The Second Amendment has no force of law . If it did we would not be fighting this battle . I am no expert on the Constitution , but being the History nut that I am , I know the 14th amendment superseded the bill of rights ... When passed ,it changed everything . Are rights come from the pleasure of the Government , and not the people who gave power to the government under the bill of rights. Most of you are thinking I am nuts , and that,s ok . I am ,but I am right. Are government is a corporation , and we are there servants . Until you know the root cause of the problem ,you can not address it properly . At this point I am not fighting to preserve my second amendment right , I am fighting to get it back. It has been infringed ,it has been nullified,gone baby.If it existed we would not need a NRA ,or GOA . What I still have is my God given right to defend myself, those I love ,and my country . I am not about to give that up to any a$$ bag , or government. On a lighter note , no one will read this or comment on it.
[h=3]Sovereign Citizen...[/h]

 

[KG1]

The Second Amendment has no force of law . If it did we would not be fighting this battle . I am no expert on the Constitution , but being the History nut that I am , I know the 14th amendment superseded the bill of rights ... When passed ,it changed everything . Are rights come from the pleasure of the Government , and not the people who gave power to the government under the bill of rights. Most of you are thinking I am nuts , and that,s ok . I am ,but I am right. Are government is a corporation , and we are there servants . Until you know the root cause of the problem ,you can not address it properly . At this point I am not fighting to preserve my second amendment right , I am fighting to get it back. It has been infringed ,it has been nullified,gone baby.If it existed we would not need a NRA ,or GOA . What I still have is my God given right to defend myself, those I love ,and my country . I am not about to give that up to any a$$ bag , or government. On a lighter note , no one will read this or comment on it.

Wrong.. "Our" instead of "Are"

 

[danielson]

I used to think compromising gun rights was fair. Until I learned about the rights we've already lost, and realized our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers did all the compromising for us. No more. We need to get our rights BACK, not give them more of them.

 

[GunsNstuff]

The Second Amendment has no force of law . If it did we would not be fighting this battle . I am no expert on the Constitution , but being the History nut that I am , I know the 14th amendment superseded the bill of rights ... When passed ,it changed everything . Are rights come from the pleasure of the Government , and not the people who gave power to the government under the bill of rights. Most of you are thinking I am nuts , and that,s ok . I am ,but I am right. Are government is a corporation , and we are there servants . Until you know the root cause of the problem ,you can not address it properly . At this point I am not fighting to preserve my second amendment right , I am fighting to get it back. It has been infringed ,it has been nullified,gone baby.If it existed we would not need a NRA ,or GOA . What I still have is my God given right to defend myself, those I love ,and my country . I am not about to give that up to any a$$ bag , or government. On a lighter note , no one will read this or comment on it.

I don't agree with that at all. The 14th amendment was passed in the way the framers intended for Amendments to be passed. The framers knew they didn't have all the answers for all time, so they made sure the constitution could be modified. Modifying it does not mean that the people no longer have any rights or that the balance of power shifted away from the people and to the federal government.

 

[danielson]

The Second Amendment has no force of law . If it did we would not be fighting this battle . I am no expert on the Constitution , but being the History nut that I am , I know the 14th amendment superseded the bill of rights ... When passed ,it changed everything . Are rights come from the pleasure of the Government , and not the people who gave power to the government under the bill of rights. Most of you are thinking I am nuts , and that,s ok . I am ,but I am right. Are government is a corporation , and we are there servants . Until you know the root cause of the problem ,you can not address it properly . At this point I am not fighting to preserve my second amendment right , I am fighting to get it back. It has been infringed ,it has been nullified,gone baby.If it existed we would not need a NRA ,or GOA . What I still have is my God given right to defend myself, those I love ,and my country . I am not about to give that up to any a$$ bag , or government. On a lighter note , no one will read this or comment on it.

I do see some merit in what he says... The government HAS become just like a corporation, as has everything else. The NRA is a corporation as well, and the heads of the NRA, not the members and local guys, but the select few that pull the strings, and live very nice lives from the NRA. If they could give us all our rights back with one stroke of a pen, they wouldn't. Because they make FAT BANK off the fact that our rights ARE infringed, and its exactly what they WANT.

Nothing we hate today was ever supposed to be. There were not supposed to be politicians making law after law after law, because they spend their entire adult lives in politics, and have to find something to do. In the same way that there is not supposed to be an organization with its top brass earning very nice livings all in the name of protecting rights THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER NEEDED PROTECTING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I dunno. I get so god damned frustrated about this country anymore. Its ALL A GAME to these people, you cannot trust any of them. Theres someone to set you up, and another to knock you down, someone to get you coming, and another to get you going. I don't think theres anything that will change it, short of the greatest depression, or the bloodiest revolution.

Im going to bed before I have a ****ing stroke.

 

[printcraft]

 

[The Drifter]

I don't agree with that at all. The 14th amendment was passed in the way the framers intended for Amendments to be passed. The framers knew they didn't have all the answers for all time, so they made sure the constitution could be modified. Modifying it does not mean that the people no longer have any rights or that the balance of power shifted away from the people and to the federal government.

Ignorance is bliss . It,s clear you are talking ,and saying what you want to believe, without facts The truth will set you free. It all happened post Civil War . The government had to find a way to make the slaves citizens ,and to bring the south back into the union ,making all the people of the south citizens again. They did it by making all people citizens of the United Stats , not United Stats citizens .That change alone ,gave them power over us instead of us having power over them. And that,s just the tip of the iceberg. I may have that last part backwards .
When men entered into a State they yielded a part of their absolute rights, or natural liberty, for political or civil liberty, which is no other than natural liberty restrained by human laws, so far as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public. The rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, - and, in general, of attaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury to another, are the rights of a citizen; and all men by nature have them. Douglass, Adm'r., v. Stephens, Delaware Chancery, Vol. 1, Page 470 (1821)

These are the rights inherent in Sovereign Citizenship. So long as we remained Citizens, they couldn't be taken away from us. So the key was to take our Citizenship away from us.

ARTICLE #2: Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship

If you look through the copy of the United States constitution found in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary, you'll notice something very interesting. The word "Citizen" is always capitalized until you get to the fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868. After that, it's no longer capitalized. This isn't an isolated occurrence either. In the definition of "Dred Scott Case," a supreme court case decided before the fourteenth amendment, they capitalize "Citizen," but everywhere else in the dictionary, where it refers to the laws of today, the word isn't capitalized. As you shall see, this is just one small indicator of many that the fourteenth amendment created a new class of citizen. This is certainly no secret to the legal community. In fact, under the definition of "Fourteenth Amendment" it says, "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States... creates... a citizenship of the United States as distinct from that of the states..." This class of "citizen of the United States" was new; it was unknown to the constitution prior to 1868. This wasn't the status of our forefathers. In the first sentence of the definition of "United States" found in Black's, it says, "This term has several meanings." Pursuing this further, we find that one of the definitions is the "collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." This is what the framers of the constitution meant by "Citizen of the United States" - that is, the Citizen of one state is to be considered and treated as a Citizen of every other state in the union. Used in another sense, though, the term is simply the name of the federal government. This is what is meant by "citizen of the United States in the fourteenth amendment":
Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)

From the authorities above, we can see that the fourteenth amendment created citizenship of the federal government. This status is a privilege granted by the government:

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Second Amendment has no force of law . If it did we would not be fighting this battle . I am no expert on the Constitution , but being the History nut that I am , I know the 14th amendment superseded the bill of rights ... When passed ,it changed everything . Are rights come from the pleasure of the Government , and not the people who gave power to the government under the bill of rights. Most of you are thinking I am nuts , and that,s ok . I am ,but I am right. Are government is a corporation , and we are there servants . Until you know the root cause of the problem ,you can not address it properly . At this point I am not fighting to preserve my second amendment right , I am fighting to get it back. It has been infringed ,it has been nullified,gone baby.If it existed we would not need a NRA ,or GOA . What I still have is my God given right to defend myself, those I love ,and my country . I am not about to give that up to any a$$ bag , or government. On a lighter note , no one will read this or comment on it.

Here's a comment: You have a right to your opinion. You have a right to your misspellings. You are patently incorrect in saying that are (sic) rights come from the pleasure of the government. Our rights come from our Creator. The infringements on those rights comes from government, but the power to do so comes to government from the consent of the governed: us.

You're right in that we need to fight, but what we're fighting for is not to re-obtain our rights, rather it is to dispense with the infringements, one at a time.

Government may punish the exercise of rights, however it has not the power to remove those rights, only to unConstitutionally infringe upon them.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[afcolt]

It might be tempting to “strike a deal”, but our rights are not bargaining chips to be gambled away. We have to be on the offensive, and in many states, we can see real progress, especially over the last decade. Our rights are endowed by our Creator, and that is all the inspiration or motivation we should ever need.

Educate, enlighten, fight as needed, and carry. But no more deals, no more compromises, no more middle ground. This isn’t a stalemate or a fighting retreat. It’s a fight to reassert our God-given rights, and we will win in the end.