The Right To Bear Arms
 

this should shut all the gun banners down.



The founding fathers made it perfectly clear arms are for protection against the government. If they'd have known that the population of today would have been so dumbed down they probably would have used a crayon to explain it to you idiots.


and if you still don't want guns just shut up, sit back and let the real men take care of your pussy asses.

If you shot yourself in the head , we would thank guns

You are right. Today's society is so dumbed down. It says it there there in black and white - A well regulated milita....

Now that's comical. The "real men" who are so afraid of their own fucking shadows that they feel the burning need to carry a firearm with them. Yeah, that's a real man all right.

I have a friend of mine here in town, shoots ever weekend, lives in the same home town, low crime, never been robbed... Lives in fear of everything and has more handguns than I have fingers. I just don't get that.

There are 70 million Americans and only a few bears left - Lets be realistic...

lol - Its funny because I was wrong - 70 million Brits and 300 million Americans.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect you from the Government, yet Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution states its treason to go to war against the US.

So the founding fathers endorsed treason? :1orglaugh

Words (pen) are mightier then the sword. Never learned that?

It's called a fetish.

Ironically, I believe this was their intention. They wanted it's citizens armed for a number of reasons. I doubt they honestly wanted the population to over throw it's government but instead wanted to concept of open rebellion and revolt to be in the back of everyone's mind to ensure to ensure the government didn't get too far out of control.

Kind of like it is today.

How many months are we going to work this year for Uncle Sugar before we actually get to start keeping some of it?

Since when is someone proposing to end the 2nd amendment?
What's this about dumbed down?

you're suggesting that an income tax rate which is the lowest in the developed world is reason for open rebellion against the federal government?

If the founding fathers were here today they would have no issue with present taxation considering that tax revenues go towards providing services to its citizens - including by far the world's largest standing military. that military would blow their minds.

people want to use the founding fathers as best suits their own present day political and personal agendas. the world they lived in was a very different one than we live in today.

the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment and nobody is trying to take that right away from the People. i hate when liberals try to twist the Second Amendment to make an argument for total gun control as much as i hate when right wingers twist it to make an argument that they have a right to build a backyard nuclear bomb and rocket launchers. Restricting ownership of some types of 'arms' has passed the muster of no less than the Supreme Court of the United States.

stop crying!

Well I suppose you could volunteer to build and maintain the roads that you drive that fancy car down, that would save everyone a few tax dollars.

:thumbsup

i do support the 2nd amendment, because i think law enforcement cannot protect all the people, in all places, at all times. There will be a breakdown in order due to natual or manmade disaster, & the people should be able to protect themselves & their families from the Lord of the Flies.

but gun rights advocates do themselves no service with obsolete & absurd ideas, such as guns are a defense against government tyranny.

first off, the 2nd amendment was written when there was no national army, a navy with about 20 ships. the machine gun did not exist, semi automatics did not exist. This amendment was a reflection of its time, exactly like the 3rd amendment (which nobody treats like a biblical passage like the 2nd)

second, no individual, or militia group, has a snowballs chance in hell from protecting their "liberty" from the government. A local SWAT squad can easily dispose of any insurrection. & if that fails, there is a state national guard. then there is the US military itself, with its f22s, ac 130 gunships, & i havent even mentioned the special forces, delta force, navy seals. & if all that fails, seal team 6. So stop arguing some jackass with an AR is protecting their "liberty"

the more gun rights advocates use flimsy arguments to defend the right to bear arms, the more i think there should be no right to bear arms.

:2 cents:

That was quite the reach from what I said to the comments you made. As far as taxes and the founding fathers. The United States was formed because of high taxes imposed by the British.

If you are so fond of giving your money away I would suggest a good cause like the ASPCA.. at least there your hard earned funds will do some good and not be wasted.

But, what you fail to realize is that having his guns isn't hurting anything, and his Fear is there with or without the guns. If having Legal firearms helps him sleep better at night, then so be it.

You are the one in fear that he might go crazy and shoot you.
So wait, You own a Gun why???

I don't own any American cars. All German and Italian. So I get a pass on doing roadwork.

What you fail to is that him having firearms isn't hurting anyone right up until the point they do hurt someone. The firearms Nancy Lanza had didn't hurt anyone right up until the point someone who was mentally ill killed her for her firearms and then murdered twenty school children and then some. His burning desire to protect his family times every other firearm owner equals a bazillion chances for a criminal or someone who is mentally ill to get access to a firearm.

He's not going to shoot me nor do I fear him. The best part is he believes he needs firearms to protect him and his family, yet he doesn't carry 24/7 - he leaves his firearms at home. That's not going to protect him when he's at the mall.

Hmm...what's the ratio of American gun owners - to gun threads on GFY?

Must be close to 1:1 by now. :disgust

I prefer tax and antiobama threads. Those are topics I can relate to.

Guns are boring.

Most of the time.

Not to mention every single one of these threads are the same pro/anti-gun people bitching about the same pro/ant-gun arguements. :disgust

real men can defend themselves without the need of any weapons...

Actually it was taxation without representation. We have representation now.

:1orglaugh

its because the right to bear arms was to protect the gov not raise up against it. Why create a gov just to have it over thrown? They were all rich men with alot to lose. Washington was one of the richest Americans at the time. He really wanted another revolution to have it all in jeopardy again?

Start an Obama thread. Pick and I'll argue the other side.

Because this gun shit is getting old.

The comments from the gun banners on this thread just proves my point. You are so dumbed down the fascist love you. They call you the useful idiots.

Look it up.

They use you to bring in their agenda and then blow you all away.

DOPES!

A group of Idaho gunowners are building a gated community in which they can protect themselves from the outsi— nevermind they shot each other.

Did you watch the video? and did you hear the quotes from the founding fathers? Or are you just a useful idiot like the other tools?

?When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.? - Thomas Jefferson

Actually I'm pro gun, well I don't own any, but I know a few responsible ex military members who do, so I support their right to own guns, but hey thanks for showing your ignorance with name calling from a simple joke. :thumbsup

No wonder nobody takes people like you fucking seriously. :disgust

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
its bogus claim

here are two common "strains" of the Sarah Brady bogus quote, one short, one long:

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us are totally disarmed."
"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
The most common citation for both versions is: The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3 (link is off-site). As you can see, the long version does not exist for the citation given.

This tall-tale gets further embellished by claiming either Sarah Brady made her statement in a letter to Howard Metzenbaum or the quote appeared as an article, again the National Educator, page 3, is usually cited.

Here is a small sample taken from the sadly large number of Web pages mentioning the bogus quote and illustrating the above points (visited September, 7, 2007):

http://www.newswithviews.com/Hayes/gianni5.htm
http://usa-patriot.net/page1.shtml
http://www.americanchronicle.com/art...rticleID=25482
http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg2.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis...truction1.html
A footnote (193) in this law review article purports to cite the Congressional Record of 1989 and 1994 when Congress was considering a ban on certain semi-automatic weapons. The footnote reads:

140 CONG. REC. S1864-01, S1866 (daily ed. Feb. 28, 1989) (statement of William Pattison). Sarah Brady has been cited as stating that, "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who could resist us have been totally disarmed." 140 CONG. REC. H3063-05. H3071-H3072 (daily ed. May 5, 1994) (statement of Joel Carlston). Such a result is exactly what the Framers of the Second Amendment sought to prevent. James Madison stated, "Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed. . ." Id.
William Pattison made no such statement regarding Sarah Brady. In fact, it is highly unlikely he would have, since he was speaking on behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations urging Congress to approve the "assault weapons" ban. A check of all statements for that day reveals no reference to "the quote." (Mr. Pattison's entire statement can be viewed here.)

The 1994 instance, (statement from Joel Carlston, Wyoming President of Americans Against Gun Control), not only mentions the Brady quote, but incorrectly quotes James Madison from Federalist No. 46, and recites another bogus quote falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson. ("The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.")

Rather than employ an apocryphal quote to expose the Brady Campaign's (formerly HandgunControl, Inc.) agenda, why not emphasize their actual record on guns which includes supporting an outright ban on civilian ownership of handguns and handgun ammunition? (

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
More Bogus Quotes

The following quotes from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are likewise fictional. The quotes are not to be found in their speeches, personal correspondence, or diaries. Nor have the quotes ever been cited in law journals by Second Amendment legal scholars.

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--- Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
Occasionally the Jefferson quote is given with the following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950). The publication exists, but the quote does not. The editor's correct name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd.
Sometimes the quote appears with Jefferson's, "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms", which is taken from his proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776. The bogus quote has appeared both before the "No freeman..." sentence and after it. However in reality, the "tyranny" portion of the quote is absent from Jefferson's draft.

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
--- More bogus Thomas Jefferson.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.
--- Falsely attributed to James Madison.
The false Madison quote, less frequently seen, does crop-up, so far never with a reference. The exact words appear in Pennsylvania's Constitution of 1790 and is probably the source (or inspiration) of this erroneous attribution.
Although not directly related to the Second Amendment or gun control issues these two quotes are fake as well:

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first..
--- Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
--- Falsely attributed to James Madison.
Jumbling John Adams

Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.
The quote above was even mistakenly cited by the NRA-ILA in 1996, and was on the NRA's Web site until at least early 1998 (and has spread to many personal Web pages). (Original NRA page preserved here. The erroneous Adams quote appears near the bottom of the page.)
Less common, and worse:

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self defense.
The correct quote:
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
As David Hardy explains, "Adams was thus mindful of the uses of arms (i.e., legitimate self-defense and militia duty) and concerned about misuse for mob action or anarchy." (The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights, 1987)
|GunCite Home|

read below lots of bogus founder father quotes flying around.

Nice video. Fake quotes are an awesome way to get your point across.