Bachmann vs. The Caucus
- Thread starter dieseldiva
- Start date
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
I plan on puting Other and Individual. I am a race of one!
All they are getting from us is "Two Names and a 'Nunja!!" Hey, that sounds like a good name for a TV show!!! They get NOTHING from us beyond the count. If they don't like it, tough buggers.
Last edited:
You and I may disagree on a few things, but the absolute unrestricted constitutionality of gun ownership is not one of them.They already have a pretty good idea where all the legal guns are now. I am glad I did not post what you did!!! Man, can you imagine the names I would be called?
If it can be classified as "arms" then it is expressly permitted by the Constitution. That should include fully automatic machine guns, assault rifles, nail guns, crossbows, Star Trek phasers and Romulan disruptors. Whatever arms is out there, arms is arms, and that right should not be infringed upon in any way by a government of the People, by the People and for the People.
We don't disagree on much and what we do disagree on I am always right!!! LOL!!!!! The Second Amendment is there to INSURE that the People retain power OVER the government. There is only ONE reason for a government to try to infringe on that Right, to take control FROM the people and retain it for themselfs. That can ONLY lead to no good.
DougTravels
Not a Member
I am not for gun control within reason. Would you classify a tank, bazooka and a Nuke as "arms"?
Come on, Doug. Tanks, bazookas and Nukes are military weapons with military applications. The Founding Fathers, in the context of the time the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted, wanted our citizens to have the unrestricted right to bear arms for self protection, defense of one's family and property. Moreover, an armed citizenry is a safeguard against a tyrannical government.
DougTravels
Not a Member
I was replying to Turtle's post, did you read it?
For the most part, yeah. Did you know that it's legal to own your own tank? Same with a bazooka, actually. Most are within the confines of local militia, like the State National Guards, and by extension by the people, but those are not federal unless called upon to be federalized during strict, narrow conditions. But there are some tanks that are privately owned. One guy near where I live has one, a Sherman Tank. He drives it in the parades.
Nukes are another matter, as they aren't necessarily considered arms in any traditional sense, and have never been used as such. Plus, it's highly unlikely that nuclear weapons would be used by the State on its own people, and thus the people would not need nukes to secure the security of a free state.
Second Amendment to the US Constitution
"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."
Once you introduce gun control "within reason" you are infringing. That's the definition of infringe. The word origin is from the mid 1500's and comes from frangere, which means to break or weaken, and it was that sense that was most commonly used at the time of its insertion into the Constitution, with the additional meanings of encroachment or trespass being commonly added to it. Not only that, it means the same now as it did then.
In addition, it doesn't say, "may not be," it says, "shall not be infringed." May and May Not are conditional, as in within reason, but Shall and Shall Not are absolutes and not subject to gradation. That means no ifs, ands or butts, the right of the people shall not be infringed, broken, encroached upon, trespassed upon, transgressed, or weakened, in any way, shape or form. And that's precisely what "within reason" does, it weakens, it infringes.
The American Indians were subdued, utterly, by their own (and your) government, simply because they were out-gunned. You think that can't happen again? Without safeguards against it, it will, absolutely.
Any arms that the government has at its disposal which can be used against its people to subdue them, the people should likewise have the same arms with which to defend themselves and the security of their free state.
Our government was set up with a system of checks and balances. Private arms ownership is the ULTIMATE check and balance. It is our responsibility to control the government. Of course, many in here do not think that way. What a shame. What better way to give up your freedom by ALLOWING the government to take control of the People.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Michele Bachmann was interviewed on Fox News this morning and is still standing on her original statement that she will not be answering all of the questions on her census form.
It's not part of the census, at least that I know of, but the intent of Article Two is that the individual, if they so choose, be allowed to be armed with any and all (fire)arms typically available to and used by the individual soldier. The intent was twofold. It provided a callable army to defend the nation and it protected the nation (that's us, the legitimate legal citizens) from the government. Brought forward to today that would include handguns and shoulder fired weapons generally up to but not including the SAW. I rather doubt given knowledge of today's technology they would have included LAWS and similar systems but it is possible. Restrictions on handguns and semi-automatic weapons of any sort are a violation of the Constitution and are wrong. Some disagree with me and that's fine. It is their prerogative to be wrong.
