"They wont take your guns" Yea right. Confiscation starts Buffalo, NY

Just wanted to point that militias are irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms.

 

I lived on base and guns were not allowed on base, so yes, I was not allowed to own a gun unless I let someone else keep it for me. My son is in the same situation now. I have to keep his guns for him.

 

While I remain opposed to firearm registration, PERIOD, I'd at least have less of a problem if the process were reasonable. 6-12 months, $600+ in non-refundable fees (even if the permit is denied), and they'll deny it if they deem your reason as deficient. That's utter horse(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Your interpretation of the 2A is pretty twisted. Here is how I interpret it.

"A proficient and trainable militia being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The whole BoR was to protect the rights of the people. The government doesn't need a 2nd amendment to protect them. They don't need to be protected from invasions of privacy, forced housing of troops, or double jeopardy in court and they are forbidden from supporting any particular religion over another. Your twisted idea that the 2A was to protect the government's right to bear arms is insane and has been disproven in the Supreme Court twice.

Show me the writings of the founding fathers that back up your ignorant assumptions. I can show you many more that support mine.

 

Please don't get sucked in by this troll. He will repeat the same incoherent stupidity for pages upon pages upon pages and completely derail the thread.

He used to do it in every gun thread until the mods put a stop to it. But he can't stay away for long and always ends up coming back to troll again, until he gets banned again.

Rinse and repeat

 

You're right. I should know better. With a lot of new people in here, I just wanted to make my thoughts about the matter known.

Back to our topic.

 

Good for you both!!!

 

I just want to point out that there is no Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme law of the land, if we have to quibble. The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment clearly declares that which is necessary to the security of a free State in the first clause and Fixes that Standard for the context of the second clause.

 

your argument lost at the Supreme Court.....twice.

 

The regular military is not the same as a well regulated militia, if we have to quibble. In any case, there is no doubt that some on the base did have recourse to weapons even if not all were considered sufficiently well regulated to keep and bear them at all times.

- - - Updated - - -

That is your red herring argument. Our Second Amendment clearly declares the term Militia to be necessary in the first clause which contains the Intent and Purpose for the second clause.

- - - Updated - - -

The only trolls on this board are the ones who have to resort to the most fallacies.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws. And,

Only our federal Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic.

- - - Updated - - -

no, it didn't; it never came up, as any form of equality between work and pay.

 

Lost.......twice.

 

nope and you can't prove it either.

you have yet to cite how the Judicature was able to commute a group right to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms (for a State or the Union) with a collective term such as a Militia into an Individual right using a collective term such as the People.

The power of a county is not the same as well regulated militias, assembled. Thus, our supreme law of the land may not be reducible to any fraction of the law merely due to possession. Nine-tenths of the law is simply not supreme enough.