Ban all guns

This much is VERY clear, friend.

 

Militia is made up of Americans not Government officials

"In America, freedom and justice have always come from the ballot box, the jury box, and when that fails, the cartridge box."
-- Steve Symms, US Senator from Idaho, 1990

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

 

You forgot...

"I am responsible. I respect my rights. I cherish my rights."

 

What part of my argument do you have difficulty with? I try to use simple American English whenever possible.

In my view, I would not need to repeat myself over and over again, if those of the opposing view had a rational argument instead of having to resort to forms of fallacies to make a point they don't have.

 

Nowhere have I claimed that the Militia of the United States is not made up of Americans; even government officials can be American.

Our federal Second Amendment doesn't seem like a doomsday provision to me, but, merely an exemption from State gun control (laws) in favor of federal gun control (laws) as prescribed by our federal Congress; and is only extended to not just any Militia (of the United States), but a Well Regulated Militia of the United States; as specifically enumerated in our Second Amendment.

It also supports States' rights, not individual liberty as a primary objective since most States have Articles of declarations of rights to forms of private property, which may include Arms; and they are enumerated as inalienable or indefeasible in most of those same State Constitutions and supreme law of the land of those several States.

In other words, the People of the several States already have an inalienable or indefeasible right to acquire and posses forms of private property which may include Arms.

Only a Well Regulated Militia (of the United States) is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.

 

You just seems to have a problem with the individual right to bear arms. Do you oppose this right?

 

Your not even an American but a TRAITOR who backs Gun control which was used to Slaughter the Jews for Islam and Nazism.

 

the 2nd Amendment is a Individual right and no state has the right to trample that right. Militia is not the same as Military try again.

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

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (178 at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

 

For most of human history, there was no such thing as a firearm, and people managed to kill each other just the same.

Indeed, if you recall from history, when the peasantry in countries from England all the way to Japan were forbidden to own swords, or weapons of any kind for that matter, they became quite proficient at using everyday tools as weapons.

If you check the books, you'll likely discover that the number of deaths due to bludgeons and knife wounds are considerably higher in nations where the ownership of firearms is prohibited.

 

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

I dont deal in likely, I deal in factual. And the facts say your are wrong. Read my point again and get back to me after you discover some factual information instead of unsubstantiated opinion.

 

Well Said - Awesome!...Simply Awesome!!

 

I have no problem with gun lovers loving their guns as much as they want.

It merely seems disingenuous to argue that citizens should not have to adhere to the rule of law regarding gun control, of the same State of which they are citizens. States have Constitutions that the citizens of that State are expected to respect as the supreme law of the land of that State.

Why is it that gun lovers want to be exempted from State gun control (laws) of the same State of which they are citizens?

 

Fallacies are not your friend when you want people to confide in the sincerity of your argument.

Why do you use gun Control when you mean gun Prohibition?

Gun control is a State's right; while gun Prohibition is not.

 

No one is claiming that any militia is not composed of individuals. From my reading of the cases adjudicated, all the judges seem to be saying, is that an individual does not need to be in a well regulated militia to acquire, possess, keep, and bear forms of private property which may include Arms. Most State Constitutions say the same thing and claim that natural right to be inalienable or indefeasible in our federal and republican form of government.

Your argument is disingenuous in that regard unless you can show that any militia is not comprised of individuals.

However, since individuals comprise a militia, and only a well regulated militia is specifically enumerated; why do you believe anarchists of the People or mobsters of the People should be exempted from State gun control laws of the same State of which they are citizens and that are meant for everyone who is not entitled to the character of a well regulated militia (of the United States)?

Are you claiming that the several States are not sovereign in regard to their domestic tranquility and security? Why have a Second or Tenth Amendment in that case?

Here is one example of what I am stating concerning the natural right to acquire, possess, keep and bear forms of private property which may include Arms.

What is wrong with a State bearing true witness to its own supreme law of the land, instead of making a federal case of it? The Second Amendment should not be invoked unless it involves a well regulated militia of the United States.

Why should anyone in a State with this enumeration of a natural right need recourse to the Second Amendment instead of simply bearing true witness to their own State supreme law of the land:

 

your wasting your time this Kook lives in Australia where he is told what to think by the Government and where they ban video games and censor the internet

 

thank you for your comments it seems we have a case of American Leftest and Foreign Leftest teaming up who hate Americans individual rights cause they think that they know better then us how much freedom we should have.

Just remember Rebecca Peters is from australia and now on the soros/obama pay role bent on making us defenseless like the people who were killed by Muslim Terrorist and Socialist thugs

 

I tried warning you'all months ago about these air-sucking wannabes.

Their all brainwashed by their socialist goverment. Or their just enviouse, and jelouse of us Americans for being gun owners.

FACT...It's useless with them.

 

the Bill of Rights and Constitution trump your so called rule of law
Americans have inalienable rights not granted by government but by our creator

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 188)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-

 

Ah, the envy card. Not at all, I have a perfectly servicable penis thanks. I certainly dont envy those who need to buy an artificial substitute, stroke it all the time while pretending its a substitute for their manhood. If you ever wonder why american women like aussie men so much, theres your answer.

 

Why is it always anti-gun folk like yourself that compare firearms with penises? Is this really what your argument has sunk to?

I too have no complains with my penis. However, I cannot realistically use my penis to take out an intruder (or multiple intruders) in my home. I also cannot use my penis to accurate hit a target a 25 yards. And what about the many female gun owners. Do you consider them all wannabe shemales?

It is quite clear that we own firearms for legitimate reasons (as those mentioned above), and the very mention of them as "artificial substitutes" for a penis is just immature, and it shows the desperation of your argument.

 

I never once said I was anti gun did I? And considering much of the commentary here from gun owners my comments regarding their inferiorrity complexes are accurate. Besides which, comparing a firearm to a symbol of manhood is a tactic most often used by NRA proponents, I didnt invent it, bucko. Why is it you pro gun people always have this scenario of taking out multiple intruders? The majority of the time when a gun is used in a home its against its owners or occupants by someone intimitaley acquainted with the occupants.

 

No, but multiple statements that you have written CLEARLY indicate that you are anti-gun.

Really? Show me ONE example of this "inferiority complex."

Really? Again show me ONE example of "NRA proponents" comparing firearms to penises in a serious manner.

Is it really out of the realm of possibilities that someone breaking into a house may have an accomplice?

What do you base this statement on? From what I have read, this is not even remotely true.

 

Typical Liberal Jew Hating Gun Grabbing Slur for People who refuse to be slaves of big Atheist Government. And next your gonna tell me women own guns cause their breast are not big.

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.

A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. – Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. – Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

Suppose the Second amendment said "A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read? – Robert Levy, Georgetown University professor

 

I had a feeling you two would be fast friends.