RE: Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?
May 10, 2017 at 7:46 am
The reason we have guns is to kill other living creatures. Guns kill so that you don't have to get up close. Long range rifles keep you even farther away from the creature that you intend to kill.
The reason that we have large capacity magazines is so we can shoot more times before reloading; so killing more living creatures or giving us more of a chance to kill one if conditions are not conducive to a single-shot kill.
The reason that the Bill of Rights includes the common sense Second Amendment is to provide The People with the means to keep their governments free of tyrants and to keep their liberties intact, as well as, provide for the defense of their communities and nation. It was such a common sense liberty that there were many who thought it need not be included in this extremely important document.
Our Constitution has always been to protect the rights of the individual and the states, while allowing for a well-controlled central government.
So...it IS about me. It IS about each of us and what rights we have guaranteed by the supreme law of our land.
In some locales, citizens are encouraged to responsibly own at least one firearm per household and I think there is one county that makes it a local law to do so.
Each and every regulation acts to restrict in some manner the right of the individual to bear arms.
In the situations described in the Second Amendment, The People should want up-to-date firearms with large capacity magazines and more than just pistols and rifles in order to be "well regulated."
Would it be a fool's errand to stand against tyranny? Do we currently see citizens of nations standing against tyranny without guns? Are they fools? Do they have a natural right to fight against tyranny in their own countries? Would you fight with them if you were a citizen there? Would you rather have a gun?
Those who carry long rifles in public do so to make the point that each of us has that right. Too many have forgotten that it is the individual who is of supreme importance in the framing of the Constitution. How can many be granted the liberty to govern themselves and still form a nation united? That was a tricky business, which I think went well. It was always accepted that its citizens must be responsible, informed and moral for it to keep working well.
Was it the gun that became the "fly in the ointment" or was it something else? Is the gun just an easy target for those who WANT a different America now? When I read the quotes of Leftists who would alter the Bill of Rights in many ways, I see the gun as just that; proceed down this path and then The People will be lambs to the slaughter and we will finally have our Communist America.
This is why for many of us we agree; "from my cold dead hands."
Are we any more extreme than others whose vision is for America in serfdom?
Stop discussing who wants bans or partial bans or restrictions and laws and get to the heart of why we have a Bill of Rights, which includes a Second Amendment, a First Amendment, etc.
-Jeanne
The reason that we have large capacity magazines is so we can shoot more times before reloading; so killing more living creatures or giving us more of a chance to kill one if conditions are not conducive to a single-shot kill.
The reason that the Bill of Rights includes the common sense Second Amendment is to provide The People with the means to keep their governments free of tyrants and to keep their liberties intact, as well as, provide for the defense of their communities and nation. It was such a common sense liberty that there were many who thought it need not be included in this extremely important document.
Our Constitution has always been to protect the rights of the individual and the states, while allowing for a well-controlled central government.
So...it IS about me. It IS about each of us and what rights we have guaranteed by the supreme law of our land.
In some locales, citizens are encouraged to responsibly own at least one firearm per household and I think there is one county that makes it a local law to do so.
Each and every regulation acts to restrict in some manner the right of the individual to bear arms.
In the situations described in the Second Amendment, The People should want up-to-date firearms with large capacity magazines and more than just pistols and rifles in order to be "well regulated."
Would it be a fool's errand to stand against tyranny? Do we currently see citizens of nations standing against tyranny without guns? Are they fools? Do they have a natural right to fight against tyranny in their own countries? Would you fight with them if you were a citizen there? Would you rather have a gun?
Those who carry long rifles in public do so to make the point that each of us has that right. Too many have forgotten that it is the individual who is of supreme importance in the framing of the Constitution. How can many be granted the liberty to govern themselves and still form a nation united? That was a tricky business, which I think went well. It was always accepted that its citizens must be responsible, informed and moral for it to keep working well.
Was it the gun that became the "fly in the ointment" or was it something else? Is the gun just an easy target for those who WANT a different America now? When I read the quotes of Leftists who would alter the Bill of Rights in many ways, I see the gun as just that; proceed down this path and then The People will be lambs to the slaughter and we will finally have our Communist America.
This is why for many of us we agree; "from my cold dead hands."
Are we any more extreme than others whose vision is for America in serfdom?
Stop discussing who wants bans or partial bans or restrictions and laws and get to the heart of why we have a Bill of Rights, which includes a Second Amendment, a First Amendment, etc.
-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
