Posted on 02/19/2018 7:50:38 AM PST by gopmike.com
Sorry, but I oppose private citizens being able to legally own nerve gas, or a nuclear weapon that could kill tens of thousands of people. Call me crazy.
The Second Amendment isn’t a suicide pact.
It’s short...Don’t know why he didn’t post the whole thing...Cheers!
Monday, February 19, 2018
I have had it with the LUNACY!!
To my Conservative Friends:
In the wake of the Florida school shooting, there is an immediate shout-down and shaming of anyone who doesn’t fall in line and say we should immediately pass sweeping new “Gun-Control Laws and Restrictions”!!
So, I wanted to write this to give you all some ammunition to fight back against the uninformed masses who want to feel woke and noble in the recent ‘gun-grab’ hysteria...
Ask people - How many people in this country have ACTUALLY read and UNDERSTAND the purpose of our 2nd Amendment???
Try reading the whole thing and understand why it was written. It is ONE sentence but Critically IMPORTANT to our liberty!
It wasn’t written so we can hunt! It wasn’t written so we can fight off a burglar or defend against a home-invasion.
It was written to preserve our right to form a MILITIA to fight back against a tyrannical government.
I know it’s not a likely scenario, but it is essential element of our freedom and liberty and the founding fathers knew it was critical to keep government in check.
It may not be needed today, tomorrow, next week, next year or in the next 100 years.
But that one day when it will be needed, we will thank GOD that it is there and we have preserved our rights to defend ourselves, form our own militia/military and preserve our freedoms.
Benjamin Franklin famously said “We now have a Republic, if we can KEEP it!”
So don’t be so quick to give our rights away!! Once you forfeit your rights to the government, what are the odds you will EVER get them back??
Let me help you with that - ZERO!
There are numerous reasons why these shootings happened and we should address them all (respect for life, over-medicating our youth, social-media destroying our children, soft/gun-free targets, toxic, hateful media, and much more...).
Let’s address these REAL reasons rather than blaming the instrument used to kill and we can then avoid the pathetic, expected, uninformed knee-jerk reaction to HAND over our guns, our rights and OUR FREEDOMS to the government just so people can feel noble and woke at their work places, PTA meetings & coffee shops...
And all I hear is BAN this, RESTRICT that by people who have NEVER read and are so uninformed of the reasons why we have the 2nd amendment.
I hear people all the time, crap on the 2nd amendment as ‘outdated’ and ‘not relevant today” because weapons are much more advanced and no way could a regiment of “Rag-Tag Fake-Soldiers” defend ourselves against ‘military-style weaponry”...
I say that to these people:
Do you realize that our rag-tag militia of, as they say, “regiment of fake soldiers” basically defeated the advance weaponry of the British in the Revolutionary War and won our Independence?
So, you have the right to poo-poo that rag-tag militia, but you can thank those fake soldiers that fought, died and won your freedom to have the right to denigrate them.
Don’t be ignorant of our history and founding.
Hitler and Hirohito both said during WW2 that they could NEVER invade the American mainland and hoped they could be defeated without an invasion because “Behind every blade of grass, there is an American with a firearm defending their land and their home!”
So, ask your family, friends, coworkers and neighbors to do us all a favor before they spout their woke, PC narrative that the media, academia and Hollywood phonies have spoon-fed them. Please educate yourselves on our history, our founding and the purpose of our 2nd Amendment and our Constitution.
It was written and defended by men much smarter and braver than most of us. Celebrate that before you jump on board the PC bandwagon and start handing over our rights and freedoms to the government just so you can feel accepted by the masses or just because you don’t feel like debating the topic that is at the core of our freedoms.
Remember, freedom is hard. Freedom needs to be defended at all times or else we will lose it.
Embrace it. Defend it, fight for it. It is what makes us great.
Just my Thoughts.
GOP Mike
Sorry...Missed the fact someone else had already posted...My bad!
I agree. I think that weapons that would be controlled by officers commanding individual soldiers are not meant to be kept or borne by individuals. That is part of the well regulated aspect.
Yep. Schools don’t teach the founders of the Constitution, or the reason the founders came here — to escape the tyranny of a monarch.
All they know is Frozen and Martin Luther King and selfies.
The nation cannot stand with an immoral, ignorant body. I fear the end will come sooner than later. I still hope and pray it is after I am 6 feet under.
Every day I thank God that I was born in the 50s and not born yesterday. I would dread to think what America will be 75 years in the future. I would dread it.
You two focus on “well-regulated”, which is in a different clause and might explain the necessity of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” but does not define those words as far as I can see.
I would focus first on “the right” and then on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, the scope and extent of this particular right. Most if not all second amendment supporters agree that the right “shall not be infringed”. Many, if not most or all, would say that a private property owner has the right to forbid someone to “keep and bear arms” on said owner’s property. Would it be an unconstitutional infringement if a law forbade one to “keep and bear arms” on the property of another against the other’s will? Would it be an infringement if one forbids another to “keep and bear arms” on one’s property? Or in each of those cases, does “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” not extend so far that “shall not be infringed” is an issue?
Samuel Johnson’s dictionaries of the latter 1700’s and Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828 define a right as a just claim. (”Just claim” could probably use further definition but I’m not going to do that now.) I cite these dictionaries as they are from the time of the Founders and I believe they most likely convey the understanding of the Founders. Using this definition, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” can be read as “the just claim of the people to keep and bear arms” and an owners property rights can be stated as “just claims based on ownership of property.
I’d say, perhaps, all else being equal, if the private owner of an establishment open to the public forbade someone to “keep and bear arms” in that establishment , the property owner would have a right (a just claim based on property ownership) to do so and a law backing up that private owner’s just claim (right) would not be an infringement.
Also I’d say, perhaps, all else being equal, if someone sees their child taken by a kidnapper into the kidnapper’s private home, that someone has a right to “keep and bear arms” while retrieving the child from the private property even if the owner forbids doing so because the owner’s claim is no longer just...he no longer has the right to do so.
Note that “all else” is seldom “equal”.
Along these lines, if someone tries to murder (unjustly kill) someone else, the first someone forfeits the right (just claim) to life because the claim is no longer just. That person is unjustly using his life to deprive someone else of his life.
And perhaps, if someone is traveling down the sidewalk while armed with the expressed intent to murder (unjustly kill) another, that someone does not have a right (just claim) to “keep and bear arms” because that person is going to use said arms for an unjust purpose.
Again, I maintain the first focus should be on “the right” and then on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, what those words mean and the consequences of their meaning.
Please remember: This is a discussion.
Look where the discussion is today. Is it on hand grenades, or rocket launchers, or tanks? No. They're talking about restricting rifles. Semi-automatic rifles. Agree to that, and they'll start in on something smaller tomorrow.
Since they just do not give up, I would say that yes--we have already lost. The only question now is timing. How long will it take? Will there be war in the meantime, or because of these "discussions"?
The problem is that this focus on gun control misses the root cause of violence--probably missed intentionally. That means that these incidents are nothing more than excuses to disarm every single one of us, and not just the mentally ill.
So, based on that logic, you are acknowledging there are limits? Be careful where that leads to.
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.