Posted on 03/14/2018 1:56:27 PM PDT by rktman
As a first step, I would like to challenge Sen. Rubio to publically explain why any American civilian actually needs to own a military assault weapon.
The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution consists of 26 words written in arcane language that has caused much confusion down through the years. Since the amendment was written at a time in our history where virtually every home contained a flintlock musket and gun ownership was an accepted, normal part of everyday life, it’s reasonable to believe that, rather than dealing with individual gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the right of each state to have its own “well regulated militia.”
However, the NRA has taken the last 14 words of the amendment, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” strictly out of context, to promote a pro-gun agenda that has been amazingly successful. The NRA is recognized as the most powerful and influential government lobbying group in the U.S. They have bought and/or intimidated many politicians — including our own Sen. Marco Rubio, who has taken millions from the NRA — into adopting and promoting their agenda, which includes the following:
(Excerpt) Read more at ocala.com ...
The language of the 2nd is not arcane. It was written in the English of the times, and written for the common man, like the rest of the Constitution. We need semi-automatic sporting rifles for many reasons, not the least of which is to keep arms in the hands of the People, as a counterweight against overbearing civil government.
“I would like to challenge Sen. Rubio to publically explain why any American civilian actually needs to own a military assault weapon.”
The second amendment guarantees that Americans can own a military “assault” weapon because, as is stated in the Constitution, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...” A militia is a civilian military and it is necessary for a free state in that it may be required to fight a tyrannical government.
The right to bear arms is tied to the need for a militia, not to hunting.
The Constitution says that the feds cannot infringe on our gun rights. That is all.
Notice how the Delusional Lying Left tries to skew the argument to things like “absolute” when the REAL issue is the Constitution that limits the feds.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,”
It should be noted that the 2A does not GIVE us any rights - the RIGHT to bear arms was UNDERSTOOD by the founders to be a fact - it was obvious, INNATE.
What leftists like Olmos misunderstand or deny, is that the 2A simply INFORMS what the Govt CAN’T DO - it can’t INFRINGE on our right.
.
Who the F___ is Ross Olmos?
The Federalist papers made the point that the people needed to hold the military strength in their own hands.
This is why a standing army is constitutionally forbidden.
The people alone are to be the power, not the government.
.
Self defense is an absolute. Firearms are only a means to assure that self-defense will be effective.
Firearms in one form or another have been the means of equalization between the physically more powerful and the otherwise relatively weaker members of any human community, when it comes down to a life-and-death struggle. Knives or special training in the use of hands and feet, or even whole body, in overcoming adversaries can be, and has been, highly effective, but only if the adversary is not more adept in their application.
Sometimes the mere display, and the determination to use a weapon, is enough to deter any further assault by the predator expecting to find only a victim.
Stop, or my mom will shoot.
And rifle.
1. The people who wrote the Constitution had no problem with people keeping those guns.
2. Wasn't the flintlock musket also standard issue for the military? That and the rifle. So if it was OK for people back then to own "military style" weapons, why isn't it now?
3. A $200 fee to own a rifle? Sounds like a poll tax. Maybe a black person who wants to own an AR15 should ask if it is...
.
The operative phrase is “God Given,” not Innate!
Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, says our rights are given us by our creator.
.
As a first step, I would like to challenge Ross Olmos to publically explain why any law-abiding American civilian should actually be compelled to own _LESS_ than a military assault weapon.
Scenario
Family sleeping peacefully. 4:13 AM. Glass breaks downstairs. Multiple people heard, unfriendly tones. More breakage heard. Footsteps heading up stairs.
And Mr. Olmos would, at that moment, would rather have:
- musket?
- double-barrel shotgun?
- 30-round semiautomatic carbine?
- baseball bat?
- nothing?
I am an American. I am a citizen. I am a woman.
In some countries, I would be a subject of a king or queen.
In other countries, I would be the slave to dictator or a totalitarian regime.
And in certain countries, I would be the property of my father or husband.
But I am a female. I am an American citizen.And that is a beautiful blessing because I have the same right to own a firearm that my husband or father has. My life, my liberty, my family are precious to me and worth protecting.
Why do I have a gun ? Because I can.
Mr. Olmos, please try to remember that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
“A well-balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”
Who has the right to food? The well-balanced breakfast, or THE PEOPLE?
Substitute: “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
Accepting the leftist arguments regarding wording, clearly they believe ONLY the well-educated are permitted to read books.
Sorry,snowfake...SCOTUS has ruled differently,the most recent ruling (a 9-0 decision) having been in 2016 in the "Caetano v Massachusetts" case.
We're sorry to inform you that you're gonna have to amend the Constitution...either by modifying the 2nd Amendment (as currently written) or by repealing it outright.
Unpopular Constitutional Amendments have been repealed before...why don't you give it a shot!
Get it?...shot! ROTFLMAO!
We need to change the terms of the debate by refusing to call them ‘assault rifles’ - we should instead point out their primary purpose by calling them ‘home defense rifles’.
The military is not ever specified as “the people”. The citizenry is the people. Not all “the people” are military.
They know exactly what intent and wording is here from the federalist paper writings debating the amendments.
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.