[rktman]

Too many feel gooders today apparently have ZERO comprehension skills ref. "infringed". Notice the following, "shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose.” Kinda clear to me. Makes you wonder when all this garbage started. Was it the roaring 30's when criminals put a bad light on gun owners? Was it back as far as some of the old west towns that "forbade" cowpokes from bearing their arms inside the city limits? Just one of the reasons I don't care for "needing" a "permit" from the state to be armed. You can bet a progressive scotus appointment would not lean in the direction of the bill of rights.

[556x45]

Frankly I think libs understand it far better than conservatives. They know that in order to rule it must be suspended for all but their own. Conservatives still are in the hunting/self defense camps. Very very few acknowledge its for over throwning tyrants.

[elengr]

Feral government servants have no business interfering with our natural right to arm ourselves with the latest in state-of-the-art personal weaponry at least equal to that possessed by feral government thugs. (Actually, with few exceptions, such as border control and perhaps the FBI, no feral bureaucrats should be issued guns. When they need law enforcement, let them go to the local sheriff.)

Gun ownership is not a right granted by any law or even the Constitution. It is a natural right of man merely recognized by the Constitution. And yes, it is a bit frightening for our so called elected servants when We the People, the sovereign citizens they supposedly serve, are as well armed as the military, but that is the whole point, isn't it?

Of course, self defense, defense of family and hunting -- in that order -- are natural rights, too, but the primary purpose of a well armed citizenry is to strike an ongoing undercurrent of well placed fear into the hearts of our feral government servants, lest they forget who are the servants and who are the sovereigns.

[Big Red Badger]

Need No Permission,,,?

How Revolutionary!

[jimjohn]

It’s this simple: Read the 3rd Amendment. Then ask yourself: “How would you keep a solider from illegally occupying your home?”

Nuff said.

[A Navy Vet]

Aside from the above, anyone who has ever read the debates, public and private correspondence, publications, diaries of the FF's knows it was about the absolute right to self defense. The militia issue was secondary, but just as valid. The idiots who claim hunting rights are just that -idiots.

There are statements after statements from the FF's regarding the right to bear arms for self defense. You would have to be a USSC John Roberts to read as anything otherwise.

All this is moot. America is buying guns and ammo by the truck loads for the simple purpose of defending themselves against a BLM/Occupy zombie attack in the suburbs which they have pronounced, and an out-of-control Fedgov. I'm even looking at new and more precise weapons at my age of 66.

And no, the few firearms I have did not fall overboard in a boating accident, which I started years ago on this very forum. I was trying to give cover for myself and others at the time. At this late date in my life, I no longer care who knows I'm such equipped.

In fact, I'm having a sign made to put in front of my home...
THIS IS NOT A GUN FREE ZONE. My few arms are Fed and California legal...at least until 2017 when Cali will make many illegal, even "bullet button" AR types, and demand background checks just to buy ammo. We're moving by spring of 2017 out of this dumbass Socialist State. The illegals, homos, and commies can have it. Yes, I am "DEPLORABLE". God save my bigoted soul.

[i_robot73]

>
Too many feel gooders today apparently have ZERO comprehension skills ref. “infringed”. Notice the following, “shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose.” Kinda clear to me. Makes you wonder when all this garbage started. Was it the roaring 30’s when criminals put a bad light on gun owners? Was it back as far as some of the old west towns that “forbade” cowpokes from bearing their arms inside the city limits? Just one of the reasons I don’t care for “needing” a “permit” from the state to be armed. You can bet a progressive scotus appointment would not lean in the direction of the bill of rights.
>

30’s? IIRC, it was the uppity Negro whom started it all: Free Man = 2nd A. protections. DEMs couldn’t (still can’t) allow THAT to happen...

Right up there w/ those uppity Jazz musicians and their reefer madness (”Where all the white women at?”)

[MileHi]

The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose.”

Pretty plain. So why is it that highly educated jurists don't understand "shall not be infringed" or even acknowledge the verbiage?