Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Democrats: Why Do You Want Only The Police To Have Guns?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Tracey12
Jul 20, 2012, 6:24:53 PM7/20/12
to
The socialist party, aka Democrats, are constantly using any misuse of
a gun to call for massive gun restrictions, or out right confiscation
of guns from the American public.
The shooting in Colorado has caused a number of democrats to start
screaming about the need for new gun laws, but when the law abiding
public is disarmed, only those who don't care about following the law
will be armed. Look at Chicago with some of the most restrictive gun
laws in America..that city is a war zone of thugs and low life killing
people daily. The gun laws only stop good citizens from being able to
defend themselves.
Most importantly, our right to bear arms as upheld recently by the
USSC is not about hunting, target practice or even home defense. It
is about having a balance of power between We the People and our
government so that tyranny is unthinkable because the People will
rightly oppose it in a moment. That is why our founders placed the
2nd Amendment in 2nd position: Its importance is that great just under
the vital First Amendment guaranteeing free speech and freedom of
religion.
Foreigners like Wy and the ferrit can not understand these concepts.
Why do democrats believe that only the police have a right to keep and
bear arms?
a gun to call for massive gun restrictions, or out right confiscation
of guns from the American public.
The shooting in Colorado has caused a number of democrats to start
screaming about the need for new gun laws, but when the law abiding
public is disarmed, only those who don't care about following the law
will be armed. Look at Chicago with some of the most restrictive gun
laws in America..that city is a war zone of thugs and low life killing
people daily. The gun laws only stop good citizens from being able to
defend themselves.
Most importantly, our right to bear arms as upheld recently by the
USSC is not about hunting, target practice or even home defense. It
is about having a balance of power between We the People and our
government so that tyranny is unthinkable because the People will
rightly oppose it in a moment. That is why our founders placed the
2nd Amendment in 2nd position: Its importance is that great just under
the vital First Amendment guaranteeing free speech and freedom of
religion.
Foreigners like Wy and the ferrit can not understand these concepts.
Why do democrats believe that only the police have a right to keep and
bear arms?
Ron
Jul 20, 2012, 7:29:15 PM7/20/12
to
2nd position:
No....if you read it, and I think you won't read it with
comprehension, it begins:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State..."
The US did not have a large standing army at its service. An armed
militia would provide military protection for the young republic.
The right to own arms was not provided to keep our government "in
line", but rather to protect the republic.
bill clinton
Jul 21, 2012, 1:17:21 AM7/21/12
to
infringed."
It says nothing to the effect that "those People" are the miltia
> The US did not have a large standing army at its service. An armed
> militia would provide military protection for the young republic.
security of a free State".
A Free State, not the security of a free republic
> The right to own arms was not provided to keep our government "in
> line", but rather to protect the republic.
clear to me
Ron
Jul 21, 2012, 1:34:59 AM7/21/12
to
You posted:
"It says nothing to the effect, as you quoted, " being necessary to
the security of a free State".
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/textpresentbill.html
"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."
You are deranged.
Mike Smith
Jul 21, 2012, 5:51:45 AM7/21/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Ron <ronea...@att.net>
wrote:
Is English your second or third language? Did you know there were
States back in 1776? Do you know the USA is a Republic, not a State?
Did you know that to guarantee the security of a free State, an armed
citizenry would make it much harder for a dictator to assume power?
Did you know the militia consisted of the citizenry?
No you didn't know any of that, therefore you are stupid, or you do
not understand English. Which is it?
Mike Smith
wrote:
States back in 1776? Do you know the USA is a Republic, not a State?
Did you know that to guarantee the security of a free State, an armed
citizenry would make it much harder for a dictator to assume power?
Did you know the militia consisted of the citizenry?
No you didn't know any of that, therefore you are stupid, or you do
not understand English. Which is it?
Mike Smith
Ron
Jul 21, 2012, 10:10:26 AM7/21/12
to
On Jul 21, 4:51 am, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Ron <roneal1...@att.net>
> >http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/textpresentbill...
that the phrase
" being necessary to the security of a free State" is part of the
wording of the Second Amendment.
Do YOU have a reading problem?
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Ron <roneal1...@att.net>
>
> >"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."
>
> >You are deranged.
>
> Is English your second or third language? Did you know there were
> States back in 1776? Do you know the USA is a Republic, not a State?
> Did you know that to guarantee the security of a free State, an armed
> citizenry would make it much harder for a dictator to assume power?
> Did you know the militia consisted of the citizenry?
>
> No you didn't know any of that, therefore you are stupid, or you do
> not understand English. Which is it?
>
> Mike Smith
My second post in this string was posted to demonstrate to readers
> >"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."
>
> >You are deranged.
>
> Is English your second or third language? Did you know there were
> States back in 1776? Do you know the USA is a Republic, not a State?
> Did you know that to guarantee the security of a free State, an armed
> citizenry would make it much harder for a dictator to assume power?
> Did you know the militia consisted of the citizenry?
>
> No you didn't know any of that, therefore you are stupid, or you do
> not understand English. Which is it?
>
> Mike Smith
that the phrase
" being necessary to the security of a free State" is part of the
wording of the Second Amendment.
Do YOU have a reading problem?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Tracey12
Jul 21, 2012, 11:48:30 AM7/21/12
to
Constitution in the Federalist papers. Also,read the USSC 's ruling
on the 2nd Amendment from a couple of years ago. Surely you're not
that misinformed tying to foist that ol commie/lib interpretation on
the American public.
Tracey12
Jul 21, 2012, 11:49:56 AM7/21/12
to
>
> "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."
>
> You are deranged.
Why do you commie/libs think that only the police should bear arms?:
> "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."
>
> You are deranged.
Tracey12
Jul 21, 2012, 11:52:56 AM7/21/12
to
On Jul 21, 9:50 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:17:21 -0500, "bill clinton"
> those are post industrial/technological age innovations
>
> Want to subscribe to a "literalist" interpretation of the
> Constittution---then do so consistently.
>
> The weapons in 18th century, rural, agrarian American colonies were
> the only consideration of the "founders". The NEED to have protection
> and means of providing food were primary considerations.
>
> The declaration named every conceivable grievance that required us to
> fight the established government and not one mentions having the
> concept of weaponry we have today. It does touch on the idea that a
> central authority should not be able to make laws related to states
> and how they choose to protect their frontiers. Militias were one
> way. what works in Vermont---was viewed differently than North
> Carolina. It was a matter of "states rights"---which is what the Bill
> of RIghts mostly addressed.
>
> NO WHERE does it say you have the right to own weapons of ALL kinds
> simply because you "want them"
It DOES NOT say that a person can't own a cannon, either. A cannon
was the major force of the time in which the Constitution was penned.
Note that the founders did not eliminate a black powder cannon from
the list of "approved" arms. WAKE UP
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:17:21 -0500, "bill clinton"
>
> <hill...@cankles.com> wrote:
>
> >> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> >> State..."
>
> >and ends "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> >infringed."
>
> >It says nothing to the effect that "those People" are the miltia
>
> It says nothing about assault weapons or automatic weapons because
> <hill...@cankles.com> wrote:
>
> >> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> >> State..."
>
> >and ends "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> >infringed."
>
> >It says nothing to the effect that "those People" are the miltia
>
> those are post industrial/technological age innovations
>
> Want to subscribe to a "literalist" interpretation of the
> Constittution---then do so consistently.
>
> The weapons in 18th century, rural, agrarian American colonies were
> the only consideration of the "founders". The NEED to have protection
> and means of providing food were primary considerations.
>
> The declaration named every conceivable grievance that required us to
> fight the established government and not one mentions having the
> concept of weaponry we have today. It does touch on the idea that a
> central authority should not be able to make laws related to states
> and how they choose to protect their frontiers. Militias were one
> way. what works in Vermont---was viewed differently than North
> Carolina. It was a matter of "states rights"---which is what the Bill
> of RIghts mostly addressed.
>
> NO WHERE does it say you have the right to own weapons of ALL kinds
> simply because you "want them"
It DOES NOT say that a person can't own a cannon, either. A cannon
was the major force of the time in which the Constitution was penned.
Note that the founders did not eliminate a black powder cannon from
the list of "approved" arms. WAKE UP
Tracey12
Jul 21, 2012, 11:51:23 AM7/21/12
to
On Jul 21, 4:51 am, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Ron <roneal1...@att.net>
>
> >"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."
>
> >You are deranged.
>
> Is English your second or third language? Did you know there were
> States back in 1776? Do you know the USA is a Republic, not a State?
> Did you know that to guarantee the security of a free State, an armed
> citizenry would make it much harder for a dictator to assume power?
> Did you know the militia consisted of the citizenry?
>
> No you didn't know any of that, therefore you are stupid, or you do
> not understand English. Which is it?
>
> Mike Smith
Great points. Liberals trust the state, not the citizenry, hence
> >"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."
>
> >You are deranged.
>
> Is English your second or third language? Did you know there were
> States back in 1776? Do you know the USA is a Republic, not a State?
> Did you know that to guarantee the security of a free State, an armed
> citizenry would make it much harder for a dictator to assume power?
> Did you know the militia consisted of the citizenry?
>
> No you didn't know any of that, therefore you are stupid, or you do
> not understand English. Which is it?
>
> Mike Smith
Ron's answers.
Tracey12
Jul 21, 2012, 11:53:55 AM7/21/12
to
On Jul 21, 9:54 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Ron <roneal1...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Ron <roneal1...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"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."
>
> States rights issue
> >STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> >infringed."
>
>
> No standing army to protect states/citizens therein in early American
> history.
>
> The proscription disallowing a federal authority to control what a
> "state" felt protected their "free state" is not applicable to a
> modern nation we have today
>
> "State militias" are subservient to Federal authority when demanded.
>
> You can't demand Absolute "literalist" interpretation of the National
> constitution unless you accept rulings in all instances
>
> Wingers only want "literalist" interpretation when it serves their
> loony purposes.
> (BTW, America has never had a doctrine of "original interpretation"
> ....ever)
No one is talking about an army. The 2nd Amendment is about we the
people, not an army which is clearly treated differently in the US
Constitution.
First.Post
Jul 21, 2012, 12:12:08 PM7/21/12
to
right when it agrees with their own interpretation. Anytime they rule
different from what the left wants, well, then it's "stupid right wing
court don't know shit".
Tracey12
Jul 21, 2012, 11:49:22 AM7/21/12
to
> > The right to own arms was not provided to keep our government "in
> > line", but rather to protect the republic.
>
> No, to protect the State and Shall not be INFRINGED is pretty damn
> clear to me
Exactly.
> > line", but rather to protect the republic.
>
> No, to protect the State and Shall not be INFRINGED is pretty damn
> clear to me
bill clinton
Jul 21, 2012, 1:36:32 PM7/21/12
to
Go back and reread what I wrote, this time for comprehension.
You said to protect the republic, I said, no, to protect the
STATE(singular)
bill clinton
Jul 21, 2012, 1:36:35 PM7/21/12
to
duke
Jul 21, 2012, 1:41:32 PM7/21/12
to
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************
Jean
Jul 21, 2012, 3:53:25 PM7/21/12
to
In article
<a09767ce-cbc2-451b...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroup
s.com>,
The mob lynches folk.
--
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1944435/posts http://goo.gl/D4pSu
Columbine http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/books/review/Senior-t.html
<a09767ce-cbc2-451b...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroup
s.com>,
--
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1944435/posts http://goo.gl/D4pSu
Columbine http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/books/review/Senior-t.html
Paul Duca
Jul 21, 2012, 4:41:55 PM7/21/12
to
On Jul 21, 1:41 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> We're protecting the Republic from those we're told not to like.
> what to do and what to think and promise
> to provide all sorts of things for me--
> Duke Weber
> .
> ********************************************
>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> It's so nice to have other people to tell me
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> what to do and what to think and promise
> to provide all sorts of things for me--
> Duke Weber
> .
> ********************************************
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Rockinghorse Winner
Jul 22, 2012, 12:52:38 AM7/22/12
to
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:18:25 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> Once a standing army was initiated----the need for militias were of
> minor standing.
> At no time did the founders ever envision a bunch of idiots with
> automatic weapons running around claiming they were "protecting"
> america.
What do U have against law abiding citizens having arms?
> Once a standing army was initiated----the need for militias were of
> minor standing.
> At no time did the founders ever envision a bunch of idiots with
> automatic weapons running around claiming they were "protecting"
> america.
What do U have against law abiding citizens having arms?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
0 new messages