Our 2nd Amendment Rights
- Thread starter Johnny_V
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Good article, I thought that this was the best part of it in light of recent events
"The constitutional right to bear arms being in itself an exercise of the sovereign power and being apart of the Constitution, the legislature is prohibited from legislating any part of it out of existence."
"The constitutional right to bear arms being in itself an exercise of the sovereign power and being apart of the Constitution, the legislature is prohibited from legislating any part of it out of existence."
OK, the 2nd Amendment, we know there are those out there that would give up and/or take these right(s) from us if they could and they seem to never stop trying. Now they're trying to use Socialism, Communism, and Progrivessism to "relandscape" the Nation and the Constitution which they consider outdated and obsolete.
They say: there is nowhere in the 2nd Amemdentment that says we have a right to assault rifles, well ok'.., I agree'..., so where does it say "I don't have a right to an assault rifle?"
Their game is; we only need rifles and pistols for hunting and target shooting, but where does it say; only for hunting and target shooting.
What it does say is... The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
The truth of the matter is when you read it as it was written, it allows us to be on a par (No I don't mean we can own a B2 bomber or M1A1 Tank what person could afford it, and let's not get into the machinegun thing for this point) with a Government that might try and oppress us or take-away our Constitutional rights. It also doesn't limit magazines, which goes back to being on something of a par with Government or any entity that could try and suppress our rights, but I digress'.., so where doesn't it say what handgun we are allowed to use, it doesn't'..., so by not specifying items it's referring to a time and place where all the most all American citizens who wished to be where armed and where on a par with Government.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying it but it sure seems **** simple to me.
They say: there is nowhere in the 2nd Amemdentment that says we have a right to assault rifles, well ok'.., I agree'..., so where does it say "I don't have a right to an assault rifle?"
Their game is; we only need rifles and pistols for hunting and target shooting, but where does it say; only for hunting and target shooting.
What it does say is... The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
The truth of the matter is when you read it as it was written, it allows us to be on a par (No I don't mean we can own a B2 bomber or M1A1 Tank what person could afford it, and let's not get into the machinegun thing for this point) with a Government that might try and oppress us or take-away our Constitutional rights. It also doesn't limit magazines, which goes back to being on something of a par with Government or any entity that could try and suppress our rights, but I digress'.., so where doesn't it say what handgun we are allowed to use, it doesn't'..., so by not specifying items it's referring to a time and place where all the most all American citizens who wished to be where armed and where on a par with Government.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying it but it sure seems **** simple to me.
26Relaod,
I'm not disagreeing with you brother, I'll only say that full-auto fire is highly overrated for most engagements unless you're trying to fix a target and maneuver an element to flank it, then, one is much better served with a crew served weapon, not an M4.
I understand volumes of fire can be devastating to an approaching element, but let try and put things in perspective, there's not much an AK or AR in semi-auto can't do to protect our families and Rights today... and that's all I'm really talking about.
Suppressors; sure just the hearing loss argument alone supports that.
Last; as for full-auto... yes law abiding citizen should, and many do, have the right to own full-auto weapons. Over my lifetime I've known many, many owners of full-auto weapons I myself had a few, but like most, they keep you ammo broke so I sold mine (business at the time) because there was just not that big of an advantages owning one as far as self-defense, and the protection of my family in an Urban environment'..., on that I could go on forever. Just my .02
26ReLoad,
Along with this Former CIA Officer Warns, Leftist Violence is Going to Get "Very Very Bad" Over the Next 2 Years
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3746364/posts
D
Deleted member 107796
Guest
I like that suppressors have taken their place in the market, except for the current cost. Of course it is possible to apply for ownership of an automatic weapon, as those with experience can enlighten us about.
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's possible, but it will cost you about $15,000 minimum for a transferrable (pre-86) weapon itself... If you have that kind of money, then it's all gravy for ammo expenses.
dok7mm
Well-Known Member
The Venezuelans are the poster children for what happens when Socialist Governments divest the people of their weapons. They have zero chance to pressure the government into reforming the country, when the so called "leaders" and the Army have taken all their weapons. Rocks and smoke bombs won't cut it against armed troops.
Our own country is fighting the Socialists' first step, to disarm the citizens. The fact that the Constitution gives us the right to arm ourselves, means nothing to those who constantly seek power and ultimately total control of our daily lives. The only reason they have failed is the power of an armed militia with the power of the 2d Amendment and a love of freedom.
It would awaken those American Socialists on the fence, to spend one week in Venezuela and see the angast of the common people, as they are now reaping the "benefits" of socialism. Perhaps, those Americans, "into socialism for the freebees" would sober up and see the end results. As for the those who are the power hungry "true believer", there is no hope.
Our own country is fighting the Socialists' first step, to disarm the citizens. The fact that the Constitution gives us the right to arm ourselves, means nothing to those who constantly seek power and ultimately total control of our daily lives. The only reason they have failed is the power of an armed militia with the power of the 2d Amendment and a love of freedom.
It would awaken those American Socialists on the fence, to spend one week in Venezuela and see the angast of the common people, as they are now reaping the "benefits" of socialism. Perhaps, those Americans, "into socialism for the freebees" would sober up and see the end results. As for the those who are the power hungry "true believer", there is no hope.
This part of the article that you posted highlights the value of the crew served weapons that you mentioned in the previous post
"Shipp urged Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights in preparation for a violent attempt by the left to take over "our Constitution and culture."
Sad but true. If you would have ask me a year ago, I would have told you (I have told co-workers) I didn't think I would live to see the disarming of America. But after this last election. I believe it it will be very soon!
BINGO!
Hit the nail on the head! You saved me a bunch of pecking on my phone. I make this speech on a daily basis but I include Cuba as another example. I work with many Cuban's. I have also been to Cuba. It's quite an eye opener to what can happen.
