Ban all guns

Ah, if only it were true. Didn't I previously correct you on this made-up quote? I guess truth has no importance in your arguments.


He never said that, friend. It was manufactured and propagated by the likes of yourself. Congratulations.

 

I see that you're still quoting things and not posting the sources. Are trying to tell us that these are your own words?

Man up and post sources.

 

You don't have to say it to imply it. And yes you are an Anti-Gun fanatic.

You made yourself one because you really have no choice in the matter. You live in a socialist country that dictates what you can own and not own.

 

so when is comrade obama gonna defend the 2 Americans kidnapped by the Muslim Iranian Death Heads Unit who hang homosexuals from cranes and stone women to death based on Sharia Law

 

Made up Prove it LIBERAL Democrat Socialist Leader

 

So you cant read the source is under the quote try again LIBERAL

 

LiberalActivist, please spare us the disingenuous argument that you care about saving lives. That's just the front that liberals use for their real agenda... disarming the American public to make way for tyranny. In the mind of a liberal, we should be ruled by a "compassionate dictator" who subscribes to Marxist ideology.

 

Our Bill of Rights are rules of law.

The Second Amendment clearly enumerates not just any militia of the United States, but that a Well Regulated Militia of the United States is what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Why do gun lovers have a problem with gun control and not gun Prohibition; only one is a States' right.

 

I've got something even better for ya' (of course Factcheck can help you with this). It's YOUR quote, so why don't YOU prove he actually said it by posting where he actually said it.

Get busy now, friend.

 

I see. So you expect us all to believe that you researched all of these quotes all by yourself, and that you did not cut and paste them all from a particular website?.......Really?

How about the passage under your false Yamamoto quote that said:

"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. "
​

Are those YOUR words? Huh? Oddly missing the usual "LIBERAL" smears and baseless references to "Nazis" and "Socialists"?

Really? Honestly?

Come on. Post your sources.

 

It would help in a reply if you stated whom you are referring to, AND the proof of your baseless accusations. Anything less is just a grunting rant.

Your choice.

 

well TRAITOR well regulated does not mean what you who backs Nazi Gun Control which was used to WIPE OUT Almost 1 billion Jews and Millions of other Non Aryan and Non Muslim races
Well Regulated means Individuals training themselves
the Militia is not the same as the Military keep trying
We Americans will crush you Anti American/Israel and Western Civilization thugs by Any means necessary

 

Gun control is Jew Control a and Prohibition Failed when tried

 

i do not go to Anti Semite Pro Democrat/Socialist/Muslim Terrorist Websites

 

I cant help your blind and back KKK started gun control why don't you be a man and come take Americans guns We Americans Dare you Liberals to come try to take our guns. God Bless Castle Doctrine

 

Your just mad cause the Person told it like is

 

What do you mean by traitor? I am simply bearing true witness to our own supreme law of the land, unlike persons who are willing to resort to the abomination of hypocrisy for their Cause while claiming to have morals.

Gun control is not the same as gun Prohibition. Why do you believe it is or why do you believe that gun control is not a States' right?

 

How did you reach your conclusion regarding any well regulated Militia of the United States? To what do private individuals who keep and bear Arms pledge their allegiance to. If it is our republic, then why do you believe that any well regulated Militia of the United States does not get its rules prescribed by our federal Congress?

I already know a professional standing army is not the same as a militia; so, do you actually have a point regarding that specious line of reasoning? Weapons qualification is also a form of gun control.

 

Can you cite where you got your belief regarding gun control? Gun control is a specifically enumerated power delegated to our federal Congress regarding any well regulated Militia of the United States; so, who really is a traitor if you are not following the gun control prescribed by our federal Congress regarding a well regulated Militia of the United States?

 

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that "the people's right to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed" so how can your statement above be correct? How can gun control be a "specifically enumerated power to our federal Congress" when the 2nd Amendment, in clear black and white print, states the EXACT OPPOSITE?

 

A literal interpretation only applies to a well regulated Militia of the United States. Any well regulated Militia of the United States must get its gun control from the rules prescribed by our federal Congress as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. The Second Amendment specifically enumerates what is Necessary to the security of a free State: a well regulated Militia (of the United States).

You may have noticed that the Second Amendment does not say that, a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free State, and therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. That is what the Second Amendment would need to enumerate for the line of reasoning claimed by gun lovers to be true.

However, let's consider that what gun lovers claim is true, why, if it is true, would we need a government, a Second Amendment, or a Tenth Amendment to secure those natural rights. Our Founding Fathers ordained and established a federal Government, not an un-federal Anarchy.

The reason our Second Amendment only applies to a well regulated Militia of the United States and not Anarchists of the People or Mobsters of the People, is that a well regulated Militia of the United States may be called upon to suppress an insurrection or rebellion by Anarchists of the People or Mobsters of the People; thus, requiring an infringement of that right of individuals who are not a well regulated Militia of the United States as enumerated in our Second Amendment, since it is a self-evident truth that a well regulated Militia of the People must be more loyal to a State or the Union simply by following the rules prescribed by our federal Congress as enumerated in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Gun lover's interpretation of our Second Amendment only applies in a vacuum of special pleading; since for it to be otherwise would infringe on sovereign States' rights concerning their domestic tranquility and security. Our Second Amendment concerns States' rights and an obligation of the People to the defense of the State. Our Tenth Amendment gives the preponderance of the weight of my argument to the several States; the Second Amendment does not invalidate the Tenth.

However, let's consider a hypothetical where gun lovers are correct in their special pleading; it would mean that rebels of the People and insurrectionists of the People would have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms; regardless of whether or not the Union or a State is deprived of it's Second Amendment right to its own security or domestic Tranquility. Because, any loyal Militia of the United States would be denied and disparaged from infringing on an individual right, regardless of any detriment to the security of a free State or the Union.

Consider also, that if what gun lovers claim is true, then any mobster of the People or any criminal of the People could simply state to a policeperson of the People, that they can commit any crime they want and not be infringed in their right to keep and bear Arms; simply because gun lovers of the People want to exercise a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment in a vacuum of special pleading.

Here is what our "mission statement" enumerates:

How would gun lovers' interpretation insure the domestic Tranquility or security of any State or the People of any State or any of the federal districts?

 

No it does not. We went over this in several prior posts. The full text of the 2nd Amendment 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." If we translate the 1790s vernacular to that of the present day, it would read, "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Thus, the "right to keep and bear arms" is a right OF THE PEOPLE, and not a right of a "well regulated militia." THIS is the true literal interpretation, and the Supreme Court agrees with this view as well.

This wouldn't make any logical sense in text. The fact of the matter is that the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions a "well regulated militia" is a preposition of that sentence: It merely serves to justify WHY the PEOPLE must have a right to keep and bear arms and why this right must not be infringed.

Wrong. The purpose of the government is not to "secure natural rights." By definition, those "natural rights" are inherently secured. The government must merely RESPECT those natural rights and not pass any laws that INFRINGE on those natural rights.

Indeed; and the Bill of Rights demonstrates clear boundaries that the government cannot infringe upon. Who here is talking about anarchy?

Not true. An "insurrenction or rebellion" can be thwarted by local, state, or federal officers or soldiers. It is not the job of an individual with no military training to perform that job of a SWAT officer or National Guard member. The 2nd Amendment's reference to a "well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" echoes the Founding Fathers' belief that being armed is a symbol of freedom and security, and the people may use such arms for individual security or as part of a militia to "secure the state" from an outside force (e.g. as in England during the Revolutionary War).

On the contrary, it is YOUR interpretation that only applies in a vacuum. Your definition of the 2nd Amendment is based on a gross misinterpretation that is repeated by liberal "scholars" who use their pulpit to force their beliefs upon impressionable minds.

How does the 2nd Amendment infringe on States' rights? Does the 1st Amendment do the same? How about the 4th, or the 14th?

This is mentioned NOWHERE in the Constitution, nor is it mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

The 10th Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Thus, I fail to see your argument here, since the 2nd Amendment clearly defines that the "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I've lost you here. What in the world are your talking about?

You've jumped off the deep end here. So you are comparing the "right to keep and bears arms" with "committing any crime?" Is this really what your argument has sunk to? Talk about desperation.

No matter how much your bloviate in a poor attempt to rationalize your unpopular view of the 2nd Amendment, you cannot seem to form a cohesive argument. This is probably why the Founding Fathers and the current Supreme Court agrees with the "gun lover" argument

 

I mean you a Democrat Leader and Member of the Obama Reelection Committee back Racist Sexist Fascist Gun Control which was used by the Democrat Formed KKK to Kill Americans who were non Aryan.
States have no right to shred the Constitution Specifically the right which is the TEETH and Force of the other rights