I don't know, I'd sure like me one of these. Just as a conversation piece of course.
Posted on 12/19/2012 9:31:17 PM PST by horsappl
The term doesn't refer to being under the control of a government.
latest media meme: why should civilians be able to own assualt weapons?
followed by: if they can be armed like the military, why not tanks and bazookas...?
Not the way they have been playing the last few weeks . . .
Our reply should be:
How many more children must die at the alter of “gun free zones”?
Or we could state:
The largest mass murders in all of history have been governments with unarmed populations.
Too bad elected Republicans check their balls at the door to Congress....
We aren’t armed like the military.
Not even remotely close.
Where is my Cobra gunship with 30mm cannon and HEPs?
Where’s my aircraft carrier?
Where’s my automatic weapon?
Where’s my Spectre gunship?
We are armed with civillian weapons, stupid media. The assualt weapons you refer to are nothing more than military “style” weapons. they are not military weapons.
****ing idiots.
“Why Precup chose to take pictures instead of try to get away has been forever a mystery.”
Quality goes to the free market supplying the public.
The Second Amendment was written to prevent another King George in America (like now in the WH.) We had just defeated the totalitarian British. As stated, it was not about hunting. Hunting was a necessity for getting food, as well as protection from Indians and outlaws. A shotgun or single-shot rifle would do for most hunting back then.
A semi-automatic well-filled clip is necessary when defending rights from intrusive government. As usual the dictator-like Democrat Party is determined to ban any rifle they determine to be “war-like.” Assault rifles can be fired on automatic. Those require a special license from ATF. A patriot who voted for Obama is not one.
My answer is two part. First, come up with a viable definition of "assault weapon."
Then tell me why exactly I have to justify exercising an inalienable right based on "need?" No one asks you to show a need for another email account based on the 1st Amendment. No one is calling for a capacity limit of 10 friends or less for facebook pages in California. Hey, you have a facebook page, why do you *need* to communicate with that many people at a time? Ha!
I may or may not need an "assault weapon" (how-ever you try to define it) - but I absolutely, unquestionably need the freedom to own one. That is non-negotiable.
bunkerhill7 to Jeff Winston
Actually it means more than that:
1887 Webster`s Dictionary:
“to bear, bear v.t., “
“1. to support and move; or carry
2. To be equipped, furnished, or marked with;
to have as belonging, distinguishing, identifying, or characterizing; as to bear a sword, an inscription,, a title, a good reputation or an evil look,
7. To be directed; to be pointed; as, to plant guns to bear upon a trench”
I have it simple on my truck tailgate
“Criminals prefer unarmed victims”
“...if they can be armed like the military, why not tanks and bazookas...?”
Yes, I want both...guaranteed by Amendment 2.
I don't know, I'd sure like me one of these. Just as a conversation piece of course.
I think the redefining will be around common and general Welfare of the United States
You redefine both of those and it's a game changer. Does anyone here think that those at the DUmp or anybody @ the Soros group defines general Welfare the same as we do?
How I see it (FWIW)
States maintain a Militia
States appoint the Officers of the Militia
Congress prescribes a training discipline by which the States are to train the Militia
Congress provides for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia
Congress shall govern such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States - that part which is not employed in the service of the United States is not governed by Congress but by the State
Congress shall call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
When called into the actual Service of the United States the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States
Amendment II
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.
Conclusion:
The people keep and bear Arms.
The people are to be trained by the State according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
The people are to be armed by Congress
The Militia may be called upon for service by their Governor
The Militia may be called upon for service by Congress.
States are to train the Militia according to the discipline presecribed by Congress.
Congress shall arm the Militia - the people.
BTW whatever happened to State Armories? I am not speaking of National Guard posts, but State Armories. Congress shall arm the Militia... which houses the arms in the State Armory. Where have those arms gone? Heavy arms. Where are they? The militia has not been provided for. The States do not train the militia... the whole of the people. States can not repel Invasions, hello Arizona!
followed by: if they can be armed like the military, why not tanks and bazookas...?
actually the Constitution does allow you to have any weapon if you have the money I guess...
“The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.